[linux-audio-user] Re: POLL: Marketing Free Music - Jamendo and censorship

Hi Jan,

>> 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?
>
> The two situations are not analogous. The only way you can
>reconcile free speech and the freedom to smoke is if the speech is at a
>harmful level, say 120dB. If you speak in a normal tone of voice there
>are no deleterious physical effects of your free speech on others.
>Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic compounds that others
>would be forced to breathe.

I admit that was not the best of examples, but my point was simply that
there are people who find listening to racist screed every bit as
distressing and offensive - or even more so - as having to breathe
second-hand smoke.
The one - a physical abuse, the other - a mental and emotional one.

> You have misinterpreted the posts on that subject. No one said
>anything about denying Jamendo the right to censor others on their site.
>Most people here just don't agree with censorship and so will not put
>anything up on Jamendo. Given what this list is about I think that's a
>perfectly understandable bias ;-)

If this whole discussion was just about whether Jamendo is a good place to
publish music given their censorship policies - then yes, I did
misunderstand.
(I thought some people were trying to make the case that it is wrong to
limit the speech of others anywhere under any circumstances.)

>Free speech never intrudes on the rights of others unless it incites
>people to commit acts that intrude on the rights of others. As Mark
>pointed out, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not acceptable.
>Asking people to kill other people in the name of whatever is also not
>supported free speech.

I would have to take exception to making this distinction for two
different, and seemingly opposite reasons.

Sometimes, people's exercise of free speech - say in certain communities
whose purpose is to cultivate a friendly and cooperative atmosphere based
on shared interests and objectives - creates a poisonous atmosphere which
is inimical and totally antithetical to the purpose of that association of
people.
For example: a fundamentalist Christian goes on a metaphysics forum,
disrupting every single thread - thumping their bible, ranting that
everyone there is going to hell, and trying to shut down the forum with
spam, dos attacks, complaints to the isp, etc.
This kind of behavior - while not dangerous, and within the scope of free
speech - is clearly disruptive and detrimental to the purpose of that
community and it would be reasonable to deny such people access to the
forum.
(This being an example, btw, that I have actually encountered a number of
times.)

The argument that free speech is unacceptable only if it seeks to incite
physical action of a violent or harmful nature is contradictory to the
assertion - made by some here - that it is insulting to people's
intelligence to suggest that they can't discern the truth for themselves
and need to be protected from those spreading malicious falsehoods or
antisocial viewpoints.
If people are to be credited with the intelligence to decide for themselves
what they think of someone else's viewpoints, they should also be credited
with the intelligence to decide for themselves if they want to go out and
lynch people, bomb synagogues or mosques, or whatever.
Words can't *make* people do things.
People *choose* to do things and are solely responsible for their actions.

(My point here is simply that in the 'public' arena - *all* speech should
be protected, even if it advocates violent behavior, and in a *private*
environment, a case can be made for restricting speech even when it does
not cause or incite physical harm.)

In Jamendo's case it is debatable whether their choices of content to
exclude are constructive or not.
If they allow all content, they are sure to turn away some users, and if
they deny certain content, they will likewise turn away many users.
I would imagine they made their decision based upon either a pragmatic
calculation as to which course would turn away the least number of users,
or simply informed by their own personal ethics and what they wish to be
associated with.

For me - the more freedom and tolerance the better for all concerned.

For those disagreeing with Jamendo's policies - perhaps it would turn out
to be constructive to contact them regarding their views.
They just might decide to change their policies if there are enough people
in the community voicing concern about those policies.

Cheers,
Maluvia
Received on Mon Mar 13 00:15:21 2006