[LINK] Censorship Issues..
Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:20:06 +1100
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:41:43 +1000, Greg Taylor wrote:
>If I could figure out what the question was I'd be glad to give it a
>go. But link has become such a shambles of late that I have inadvertently
>deleted your original post along with the rest.
The posting made was in respect of voyeuristic material and privacy
issues regarding such material. The question was quite clear and
>I think you may be asking if there can be a conflict between free speech
I never mentioned free speech or a conflict between free speech and
privacy. Read what you will but I never made such a statement, nor
tilted my hat in that direction.
>Bob, I'd like to make a friendly suggestion. Your style of posting is
>extremely annoying, even to free speech advocates like me. We all know by
>now that there is material for sale on the streets of Sydney etc.
And the government of New South Wales has Internet legislation
pending. There shouldn't be one law for those with money and those
who could be the target of arbitrary police action.
> There is no need to keep repeating it over and over ad infinitum,
I disagree. I'll repeat truth ad infinitum as long as my fingers
hold. It reminds those who govern us that the laws they attempt to
inflict on us are at odds with community standards.
>especially when it is not at all clear what point you are trying to make,
>or even which side of the censorship debate you are currently on.
I have made the point of being anti-censorship many many times. My
position was clearly explained with points clearly marked
and c) privacy were clearly labeled.
>Today alone you have posted 14 times out of about 60 messages to
>link. That's not to say the other 46 messages were any more sensible or
>welcome, but is it possible you are abusing the privilege of being on this
That's at the discretion of the list owner.
I'm currently unemployed/between contracts and will make my points as
I see them.
> When people got "hot under the collar" previously I unsubscribed.
>1995. At one time it was a highly regarded list, with many members (albeit
>lurkers) occupying influential positions in government, politics and the
Oh for the privilege of lurking with the rich and powerful. Some of
us are unemployed and hopefully humble. My opinion is as good as
anyone in an alleged influential position. The aristocracy was
beheaded in France in the interests of liberty and freedom. I was
born working class and will die working class.
> It was a good medium for conveying views and opinions that could
>sometimes educate and influence government thinking on Internet issues.
I like to give government and the police a nudge from time to time.
Contact recently has been with the OFLC, Des Clark, the Hon Secretary
to the Prime Minister and the Hon Bob Debus. I have reported their
reactions and responses. Shortly I'll be bringing these matters to
the attention of detectives and reiterating my points again. It's the
"scratched record" syndrome.
> In those days also there was an unwritten rule called netiquette. Every
>message posted to link goes to about 300 people (if they're all still
>here), yet at least 90% of recent postings are just a massive waste of
>bandwidth, with nothing new to say, no new insight to add.
And you Greg Taylor have lost, deleted and are seemingly unwilling or
unable to answer a simple question regarding privacy and voyeurism.
>degenerated into politics, with a little sex thrown in to complete the
>trifecta. All it needs now is for someone to invoke Godwin's law and the
>cycle of list degeneration is complete.
What happened to the EFA crypto list Greg ?
I haven't seen a peek from that in years and I believe I'm still
How many postings are there to the STOP censorship list.
Hardly a major force for change in my opinion..
As was decreed in the United States the Internet is a cacophony of
views and opinions.
If it's the aristocracy you are interested in I suggest you make a
pitch for a gong...