[LINK] [LINK} grog gamut

[Karl Auer]

On Tue, 2010-10-05 at 16:21 +1100, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
> That's generally the position from which new rights are won: they come 
> into existence because people care and work out a means by which those 
> rights can be achieved and recognised.

They generally come into being because a new force - typically
technological and/or commercial, but sometimes social (like slavery) -
starts routinely damaging people. After a while, the damage starts to
seem too big for any of the advantages that are typically being claimed
by those doing the damage, then they are held kicking and screaming to
account, then everything stabilises again for a while.

>  If a right doesn't exist, then 
> how is anybody expected to avoid breaching it? By custom? Whose?

Initially by common custom and consent. Then someone sees an advantage
in ignoring it (see above) and starts exploiting it until Steps Are
Taken which generally involve codifying it really badly, until over the
ensuing decades something approaching useful is achieved. We are
currently Taking Steps regarding privacy, so expect a few decades of
misery to come...

>  Because 
> a mob gets together and decides that the best way to defeat the bully is 
> to amass more bullies?

Exactly what do you imagine a police force is? Or why it';s called a
police *force*?

> Someone can say "but I have the right to blog anonymously", but beyond 
> that, so what? If there is no remedy there is no right: it becomes 
> merely a power competition. So I'm trying to refine the questions, not 
> because I'm accustomed either to talking bollocks or being told I am, 
> but because most of the public debate so far on both sides has been, 
> well, bollocks. The articles attacking News Limited have just as little 
> rigour, in general, as News' justifications.

It is the demand for "rigour", instead of consistency and
accountability, that plagues corporate ethics generally and journalism
in particular. Journalists should not be defending their actions just by
references to this or that law.

Asking "why not" is the curse of modern society. Ask "why" instead. It's
a much harder question, but the answers are much more useful.

Bollocks seems a pretty clear statement to me (I don't pretend it's an
argument, just a short sharp description of yours). So far, your
arguments have involved setting up straw men and knocking them down.

Where did "rights" enter the picture? I made no claim about 'rights". I
don't know or care whether the blogger in this case had a legal "right"
to anonymity. He'd chosen anonymity. Without any good reason that I can
see, that anonymity was breached, to said bloggers disadvantage. To me
this is much the same as hitting someone with no provocation, though I
do appreciate that the legal position on the two acts are very
different.

So I'm asking you, someone, anyone, to tell me why.

My own conclusion thus far is that it was done for entirely selfish
reasons on the part of the journalist concerned, and that his judgement
should be called sharply into question by his superiors. They should
insist that he starts asking "why" instead of "why not".

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer/                   +61-428-957160 (mob)

GPG fingerprint: B386 7819 B227 2961 8301 C5A9 2EBC 754B CD97 0156
Old fingerprint: 07F3 1DF9 9D45 8BCD 7DD5 00CE 4A44 6A03 F43A 7DEF