From chaim.rieger at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 23:34:45 2010 From: chaim.rieger at gmail.com (chaim rieger) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:34:45 -0700 Subject: [debate] we still alive ? Message-ID: <4B9EC415.3040300@gmail.com> can i start a topic ? or are you all too busy ? From chaim.rieger at gmail.com Mon Mar 15 23:46:23 2010 From: chaim.rieger at gmail.com (chaim rieger) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:46:23 -0700 Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate Message-ID: <4B9EC6CF.6020305@gmail.com> Few weeks ago there was a big ruckus about the Atheist Movement going on campus and giving away a Porn Mag for each Bible anybody turned in. This is allowed under the free speech act (here in the US) However giving away a bible for something in return does not fall under the same category. Anybody have an opinion on why it should be the same for both sides ? From ge at linuxbox.org Mon Mar 15 23:55:56 2010 From: ge at linuxbox.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:55:56 +0200 Subject: [debate] we still alive ? In-Reply-To: <4B9EC415.3040300@gmail.com> References: <4B9EC415.3040300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B9EC90C.8080909@linuxbox.org> On 3/16/10 1:34 AM, chaim rieger wrote: > can i start a topic ? > or are you all too busy ? Start a topic. > _______________________________________________ > debate mailing list > debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate > -- Gadi Evron, ge at linuxbox.org. Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/ From renderle at enderlegroup.com Tue Mar 16 00:35:38 2010 From: renderle at enderlegroup.com (Rob Enderle) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:35:38 -0700 Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate In-Reply-To: <4B9EC6CF.6020305@gmail.com> References: <4B9EC6CF.6020305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07CBA6F100E32249840F119A313BB5C306497EA3@ex10.hostedexchange.local> The reason it shouldn't be the same for both sides is the risk of violence that could result. While free speech is very important when there is a high potential that the stunt will result in violence then the state has an obligation to protect the citizens from the result. Much like there are limitations with regard to where and when the KKK can march there have to be restrictions on actions which could result in unacceptable collateral damage. Yelling fire in a theater, for example is not protected speech. So while giving a bible for a porn magazine is OK, because atheists are unlikely to violently protect the porn industry, giving bibles for porn magazines needs to be curtailed because religious fanatics are unlikely to be so constrained. Given the act is less about free speech and more about inciting a reaction which could be violent, much like it would be if folks actively tried to incite a riot, this kind of stunt should be prohibited because of both the intent and likely result. Rob Enderle Principal Analyst Enderle Group Twitter @enderle ?? Work:? 408 272-8560 Cell:???? 408 832-6326 FAX:??? 408 904-5274 -----Original Message----- From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of chaim rieger Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM To: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate Few weeks ago there was a big ruckus about the Atheist Movement going on campus and giving away a Porn Mag for each Bible anybody turned in. This is allowed under the free speech act (here in the US) However giving away a bible for something in return does not fall under the same category. Anybody have an opinion on why it should be the same for both sides ? _______________________________________________ debate mailing list debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate From pdjukes at gmail.com Tue Mar 16 01:04:47 2010 From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:04:47 +0000 Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate In-Reply-To: <07CBA6F100E32249840F119A313BB5C306497EA3@ex10.hostedexchange.local> References: <4B9EC6CF.6020305@gmail.com> <07CBA6F100E32249840F119A313BB5C306497EA3@ex10.hostedexchange.local> Message-ID: <2c4fe12b1003151804h137b293bmbc28f121db055413@mail.gmail.com> Chaim brings up one the key limitations of free speech - the incitement limitation - but let's admit that can readily be abused by authorities on the condition of 'public safety': look how the Jacobins abused that particular meme in the French revolution. Free speech is always limited by laws of conspiracy, libel and incitement to violence. But intent is hard to measure, even in a criminal court. And as for 'likely result': again, how can one know until one's tested it. A less legalistic and philosophical approach would be to look at the use/misuse of speech in terms of power, and majoritarian tendencies to overrun minority or individual points of view. Unfortunately, in this instance, neither Pornographers or Bible Bashers represent a silenced or minority voice in the US. A more complex and telling instance is the publication of comic cartoons about Muhammad in the Danish Press. Now, ther right to ridicule religion is one of the achievements of Enlightenment Europe. But these stupid and rather inane cartoons do not represent the spirit of Voltaire, or Zola's *J'Accuse* during the Dreyfus case. Why not? Because Denmark is overwhelming white, protestant based and mainly secular. The editors of that magazine deployed their 'free speech' harmfully (though not illegally) because they seemed to overlook the fact that, whatever its extreme manifestations on the world stage, Muslims in Denmark are a very small, and not very vocal, minority. Those cartoons shouldn't have been banned because of their intent, outcome, or likelihood to raise a riot. They could be condemned on the power issue - who's deploying their free speech about what at whom. , Mar 16, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Rob Enderle wrote: > The reason it shouldn't be the same for both sides is the risk of violence > that could result. While free speech is very important when there is a high > potential that the stunt will result in violence then the state has an > obligation to protect the citizens from the result. Much like there are > limitations with regard to where and when the KKK can march there have to be > restrictions on actions which could result in unacceptable collateral > damage. Yelling fire in a theater, for example is not protected speech. > > So while giving a bible for a porn magazine is OK, because atheists are > unlikely to violently protect the porn industry, giving bibles for porn > magazines needs to be curtailed because religious fanatics are unlikely to > be so constrained. Given the act is less about free speech and more about > inciting a reaction which could be violent, much like it would be if folks > actively tried to incite a riot, this kind of stunt should be prohibited > because of both the intent and likely result. > > Rob Enderle > Principal Analyst > Enderle Group > > Twitter @enderle > > Work: 408 272-8560 > Cell: 408 832-6326 > FAX: 408 904-5274 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto: > debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of chaim rieger > Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM > To: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org > Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate > > Few weeks ago there was a big ruckus about the Atheist Movement going on > campus and giving away a Porn Mag for each Bible anybody turned in. This > is allowed under the free speech act (here in the US) > > However giving away a bible for something in return does not fall under > the same category. > > Anybody have an opinion on why it should be the same for both sides ? > > _______________________________________________ > debate mailing list > debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate > _______________________________________________ > debate mailing list > debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pdjukes at gmail.com Tue Mar 16 01:07:30 2010 From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:07:30 +0000 Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate In-Reply-To: <2c4fe12b1003151804h137b293bmbc28f121db055413@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B9EC6CF.6020305@gmail.com> <07CBA6F100E32249840F119A313BB5C306497EA3@ex10.hostedexchange.local> <2c4fe12b1003151804h137b293bmbc28f121db055413@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2c4fe12b1003151807h6aa3a6fqeafa4a9e7b027562@mail.gmail.com> Sorry: first sentence should have read "*Rob *brings up one the key limitations of free speech" On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Peter Jukes wrote: > Chaim brings up one the key limitations of free speech - the incitement > limitation - but let's admit that can readily be abused by authorities on > the condition of 'public safety': look how the Jacobins abused that > particular meme in the French revolution. Free speech is always limited by > laws of conspiracy, libel and incitement to violence. But intent is hard to > measure, even in a criminal court. And as for 'likely result': again, how > can one know until one's tested it. > > A less legalistic and philosophical approach would be to look at the > use/misuse of speech in terms of power, and majoritarian tendencies to > overrun minority or individual points of view. Unfortunately, in this > instance, neither Pornographers or Bible Bashers represent a silenced or > minority voice in the US. A more complex and telling instance is the > publication of comic cartoons about Muhammad in the Danish Press. Now, ther > right to ridicule religion is one of the achievements of Enlightenment > Europe. But these stupid and rather inane cartoons do not represent the > spirit of Voltaire, or Zola's *J'Accuse* during the Dreyfus case. Why not? > Because Denmark is overwhelming white, protestant based and mainly secular. > The editors of that magazine deployed their 'free speech' harmfully (though > not illegally) because they seemed to overlook the fact that, whatever its > extreme manifestations on the world stage, Muslims in Denmark are a very > small, and not very vocal, minority. > > Those cartoons shouldn't have been banned because of their intent, outcome, > or likelihood to raise a riot. They could be condemned on the power issue - > who's deploying their free speech about what at whom. > > > , Mar 16, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Rob Enderle wrote: > >> The reason it shouldn't be the same for both sides is the risk of violence >> that could result. While free speech is very important when there is a high >> potential that the stunt will result in violence then the state has an >> obligation to protect the citizens from the result. Much like there are >> limitations with regard to where and when the KKK can march there have to be >> restrictions on actions which could result in unacceptable collateral >> damage. Yelling fire in a theater, for example is not protected speech. >> >> So while giving a bible for a porn magazine is OK, because atheists are >> unlikely to violently protect the porn industry, giving bibles for porn >> magazines needs to be curtailed because religious fanatics are unlikely to >> be so constrained. Given the act is less about free speech and more about >> inciting a reaction which could be violent, much like it would be if folks >> actively tried to incite a riot, this kind of stunt should be prohibited >> because of both the intent and likely result. >> >> Rob Enderle >> Principal Analyst >> Enderle Group >> >> Twitter @enderle >> >> Work: 408 272-8560 >> Cell: 408 832-6326 >> FAX: 408 904-5274 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto: >> debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of chaim rieger >> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:46 PM >> To: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org >> Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate >> >> Few weeks ago there was a big ruckus about the Atheist Movement going on >> campus and giving away a Porn Mag for each Bible anybody turned in. This >> is allowed under the free speech act (here in the US) >> >> However giving away a bible for something in return does not fall under >> the same category. >> >> Anybody have an opinion on why it should be the same for both sides ? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> debate mailing list >> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org >> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate >> _______________________________________________ >> debate mailing list >> debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org >> http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.rieger at gmail.com Tue Mar 16 17:11:26 2010 From: chaim.rieger at gmail.com (chaim rieger) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 10:11:26 -0700 Subject: [debate] Proposal for debate In-Reply-To: <2c4fe12b1003151804h137b293bmbc28f121db055413@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B9EC6CF.6020305@gmail.com> <07CBA6F100E32249840F119A313BB5C306497EA3@ex10.hostedexchange.local> <2c4fe12b1003151804h137b293bmbc28f121db055413@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B9FBBBE.6050008@gmail.com> No offense Peter, but you went way off topic here. the premise of free speech is to guarantee that even though your buttons will be pushed, they (as well as you) have a right to push buttons. Giving away Pron Mags for Bibles, falls under free speech, because i have a right to make a statement, and my statement is that i believe that they are both of equal value. Giving away a Bible for a Pron Mag however does not imply that i think that they are of the same and equal value. That is not my statement. MY statement is that my Bible is more worthy than your Pron Mag. Intention should not impede free speech. ever. If free speech were to be curtaild because of intentions then it goes out the window. The Nazi party (and other white supremacy parties) has/have a right to protest (and they do) we all know what their intentions are... Incitement is allowed in free speech, creating a public danger is not, yelling fire in a crowded theater aint cool. Yelling "kill white people" on a street corner is... my thoughts... From rMslade at shaw.ca Wed Mar 17 02:14:35 2010 From: rMslade at shaw.ca (Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah) Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:14:35 -0800 Subject: [debate] we still alive ? In-Reply-To: <4B9EC415.3040300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B9FCA8B.8808.99BB5CA@localhost> Date sent: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:34:45 -0700 From: chaim rieger > can i start a topic ? > or are you all too busy ? OK, that's three topics. Chaim Rieger will argue FOR the propositions that: We are still alive and Chaim Rieger can start a topic. Chaim will argue AGAINST the proposition that: We are all too busy. We will need volunteers to take the opposing views. ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) rslade at vcn.bc.ca slade at victoria.tc.ca rslade at computercrime.org Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick [security] fixes work? - Joel R. Helgeson, funsec, 20080412 victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/slade/index.html http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/ http://twitter.com/NoticeBored http://twitter.com/rslade From pdjukes at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 01:29:50 2010 From: pdjukes at gmail.com (Peter Jukes) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:29:50 +0000 Subject: [debate] we still alive ? In-Reply-To: <4B9FCA8B.8808.99BB5CA@localhost> References: <4B9EC415.3040300@gmail.com> <4B9FCA8B.8808.99BB5CA@localhost> Message-ID: <2c4fe12b1003161829w1e60c4b7y33e55d0d79330fde@mail.gmail.com> How about Chaim will propose that anything he disagrees with is off topic I will argue propose that he's wrong. Simple enough Duende Productions 4.1 The Ziggurat Building 60-66 Saffron Hill London EC1N 8QX pdjukes at gmail.com 0771 204 8311 020 7209 2500 On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah wrote: > Date sent: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:34:45 -0700 > From: chaim rieger > > > can i start a topic ? > > or are you all too busy ? > > OK, that's three topics. > > Chaim Rieger will argue FOR the propositions that: > > We are still alive > > and > > Chaim Rieger can start a topic. > > Chaim will argue AGAINST the proposition that: > > We are all too busy. > > We will need volunteers to take the opposing views. > > ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer) > rslade at vcn.bc.ca slade at victoria.tc.ca rslade at computercrime.org > Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick > [security] fixes work? - Joel R. Helgeson, funsec, 20080412 > victoria.tc.ca/techrev/rms.htm blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/slade/index.html > http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/author/p1/ > http://twitter.com/NoticeBored http://twitter.com/rslade > _______________________________________________ > debate mailing list > debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chaim.rieger at gmail.com Wed Mar 17 01:27:43 2010 From: chaim.rieger at gmail.com (chaim.rieger at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:27:43 +0000 Subject: [debate] we still alive ? Message-ID: <94419374-1268789266-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-478738976-@bda2124.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Bite me Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile