[WSIS CS-Plenary] Balancing Free Speech

[Dale s Plenary eMail]

Hello Jonathan:

A picture tells 1,000 words, an analogy tells 1,000 pictures, and an 
allegory tells 1,000 analogies.  I wish I had the allegory.  Thank you 
for pointing out the weak points of my analogy; analogies inherit the 
week points of a picture which can not get the action of what the 
picture represents.  This is likened to how a spreadsheet model of the 
economy can not take into consideration what an individual consumer 
will purchase at any given time.  No model accurately depicts reality.

I like that an idea can be discussed, taken apart, then put back 
together as a better concept.  That would seem to be diplomacy at its 
best.  The very fact that we are able to discuss this issue itself is 
a wonderful thing.  It is an example of free speech.

I think if we put all of our ideas together, we could come up with:
1) Do not influence elections either by:
   1.1) Mass of the media (your FCC point below)
   1.2) Harassing individuals (my point below)
2) Allow the free flow of information so that ideas can be expressed
   2.1) Allow the minority opinion as well as the majority
   2.2) Allow for a freedom of expression
3) Play fair

I am sure there is more that could be codified given time.


In more general concepts:
1) Love your neighbor
2) Do not forsake the individual for the group
3) Be responsible with the power of the group


Kind regards,


Dale Chalfant


> 
> Dear Dale,
> 
> Thank you for your comments. It seems to me that your analogy is 
imperfect 
> on two counts. The first is the 'dangerous speech' analogy. Leaving 
aside 
> the issue of whether targeted speech is more or less likely to cause 
cause 
> injury than causing a panic, the fact remains that taking down the 
servers 
> in no way resembles cordoning off the theatre to keep the culprit 
from 
> escaping. It also does not prevent the escape of any potential 
witnesses. 
> This is a virtual space, remember? All it does is to create 
the "impression 
> of repression" which, I would submit, is a pretty loud cry of "fire!"
> 
> Second, the incendiary impression given by the fact that 
the 'victims' were 
> Republican delegates to a convention that has long since finished is 
> multiplied by the Sinclair Broadcast Group's intention to pre-empt 
60 local 
> stations for what is by all accounts a piece of anti-Kerry 
propoganda on 
> the eve of the election. As one of the US FCC Commissioners puts it:
> 
> >
> >FCC COMMISSIONER COPPS CRITICIZES SINCLAIR CORPORATE DECISION TO 
PREEMPT 
> >LOCAL STATIONS FOR POLITICAL BROADCAST
> >
> >
> >
> >Commissioner Michael J. Copps reacted to reports that Sinclair 
Broadcast 
> >Group will preempt more than 60 local stations across the country 
to air 
> >an overtly political program in the days prior to the Presidential 
election.
> >
> >Copps stated:  "This is an abuse of the public trust.  And it is 
proof 
> >positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the 
public 
> >airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology -- 
whether 
> >liberal or conservative.  Some will undoubtedly question if this is 
> >appropriate stewardship of the public airwaves.  This is the same 
> >corporation that refused to air Nightline's reading of our war dead 
in 
> >Iraq.  It is the same corporation that short-shrifts local 
communities and 
> >local jobs by distance-casting news and weather from hundreds of 
miles 
> >away.  It is a sad fact that the explicit public interest 
protections we 
> >once had to ensure balance continue to be weakened by the Federal 
> >Communications Commission while it allows media conglomerates to 
get even 
> >bigger.  Sinclair, and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous 
road."
> >
> ><http://www.fcc.gov>www.fcc.gov
> 
> So, while I applaud your clever argument, it seems to miss the main 
point 
> of the group's concerns - as I understand them.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> At 04:30 15/10/2004, you wrote:
> >Hello:
> >
> >I have not posted before; I have been an observer.  I am coming 
from the 
> >view point of a technician (a programmer, DBA, UNIX admin, ...),  
who is 
> >now in law school, and I am a Citizen of the State of  California 
in America.
> >
> >As I understand it, the indymedia servers were removed because they 
> >contained information targeted at a group of individuals, the 
delegates of 
> >the Republican National Convention.  And, this information was used 
to 
> >harass people who were trying to go about the business of the 
Republican Party.
> >
> >I concur if that is the case...
> >
> >Say someone was to yell; "Fire!" in the middle of a theater, and as 
a 
> >result, there were people hurt.  Further suppose the person was 
still in 
> >the general area.  The police, in an attempt to find the individual 
for 
> >justice, cordoned off the place.
> >
> >The police did not want to take the chance that the individual's 
friends 
> >would let the friend go (due to a knowledge that the were police 
coming), 
> >so the police did not notify anyone.  The law sealed off the area 
and went 
> >to looking and opened the area back up after that was done.
> >
> >Does that make sense?
> >
> >
> >Kind regards,
> >
> >
> >Dale Chalfant
> >
> >I posted a bit more detail here if anyone may be interested:
> >http://cyb2law.blogspot.com
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Plenary mailing list
> >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> 
> 

Dale Chalfant