>Yes, and one such absolute value is "free speech".
>
>Lee
Tell that to David Irving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
>I just want to clarify two things and then I'll stop these annoying posts.
They're not annoying.
In a community centered around other ideals of freedom, free speech is just
as relevant imo.
>And it's obvious that I must respect this freedom even when somebody
>says something that I disagree with.
>
>I'm still undecided if is right or wrong to ban offensive language by
>somebody who is trying to build a community of likeminded people.
>
>If you invite me at your home, and I start insulting you and your family
>with racist and sexist words I don't thing you would invite me again. In
>the same way anybody can start his/her own web community and apply the
>rules he/she want.
I agree with you completely Cesare - this is precisely the point I wanted
to make.
I live in the U.S. - where *supposedly* free speech is held in the highest
regard and legally protected.
Nevertheless, if someone comes into my home spewing racist bile, I will
punch them in the face, throw them out, and they will not be allowed back
in.
I have a right to maintain a space of my own - my domicile - where I do not
have to listen to that, or have my children listen to that.
On the other hand, if you were hauled off to jail for voicing unpopular
views in public, I would vigorously speak in your defense, however
offensive I might find those views personally.
There are also people who believe in absolute free speech rights anywhere
they go, and yet support laws that keep others from smoking in the
workplace or other public places.
Aren't they violating smokers' rights to smoke if they want to - *anywhere*
they want?
Those who disagree would say they have a right to work/eat in a smoke-free
environment where they do not have to smell the stench of cigarette smoke,
or be subjected to the harmful fumes.
I would agree with them.
This list is another example.
I have often been reminded :) of what is considered OT here, due to the
focus of this list, and I have been prepared from the outset to be shown
the door if and when I cross that invisible line of what is tolerable here.
(Just testing the limits of those boundaries occassionally :) ).
That is perfectly acceptable to me - as a group of people has a right to
come together for a common objective with certain agreed upon guidelines
for acceptable behavior and discussion in order to further the purpose of
their community.
How can you uphold the right to free expression and simultaneously deny
others their right to create environments for themselves where they do not
have to listen to it?
When the exercise of one person's rights violates the rights of another,
who is right and who is wrong?
This is where it gets tricky: where are these neutral places where anything
goes without intruding on the rights of others?
Jamendo is not denying anyone their right to freedom of expression in the
world at large, they just don't want certain forms of it in their
particular community.
Anyone is free to start their own music community with as much racist or
sexist filth, and as much pornographic content as they want to (subject of
course to government laws and govt. censorship.)
>Otherwise, you should call it 'Linux Audio American Users' or 'Linux
>Audio Land of The Freedom Users'. In this case I would maybe kiss your
>ass and leave.
Although the the lingua-franca here is English, I would be very surprised
if there were not more non-Americans here than Americans.
It feels like a pretty global list.
Don't leave :)
- Maluvia
Received on Sun Mar 12 20:15:10 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 12 2006 - 20:15:10 EET