questions of morality

Nato Welch nate at asaim.com
Thu Feb 3 07:57:23 UTC 2005


I tend to think that freedom of speech is best implemented not as a 
right of the speaker, but of the audience. Freedom of speech is the 
right to be heard by those who wish to hear, not necessarily the right 
to speak in exclusion.

By using this listener-rights model, it tends to clear up grey areas 
like fraud, since being lied to is, utlimately, a violation of the 
listener's consent to listen - no one wants to be lied to.

This is why I think TOR is important - it's among a vangaurd of projects 
that is capable of protecting publishers (ie, Internet servers) as well 
as audiences (clients/browsers). If you protect listeners, but not 
speakers, it doesn't do much good, because no one can safely say certain 
things.

Because publishers and audiences of all classes and capabilities are 
enforced by the technical nature of the system into having equal status, 
there's less opportunity for consolidation of resources. Equality is 
enforced by the system's architecture rather than by the (too often 
lacking) good faith of the participating parties.

--
Nato Welch
nate at asaim.com



Zinco wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Wednesday, February 02, 2005 6:36 PM Aaron Cannon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Hello all.  I'm a new member of the list and a newbie to TOR.  I
>>have been  looking for a worthy cause to donate my bandwidth to.  I
>>think I might have  found it in TOR, but I am a little bit hesitant
>>because I am not eager to  facilitate someone's wrong doing.  On the
>>other hand, I would like to help  those who would like anonymity
>>online.
> 
> 
>>So, I suppose, in the end, it comes down to the simple question: do
>>the  positive uses of TOR out-weigh the negative ones?
> 
> 
> This is an age old and very difficult argument.  My right to free
> speech and privacy vs. societies responsibility to protect the common
> good.  Who defines "the common good"?  Who decides what speech I
> should be protected from?  Who monitors it?  Certainly it should not
> be those involved in tor.  I tend to err on the side of freedom and
> privacy and my faith in private citizens to work things out.
> 
> Should all speech be protected?  Do I have a right to yell "FIRE" in
> a crowded theatre?  Is there an analogy to that question on the
> internet?  My guess is that if tor attracts that much abusive and or
> illegal activity the network will not last and will not be available
> for them or us.  I guess this would be the way the free market of
> ideas works it out.  Notice the issue of IRC servers and of wikpedia
> as of late.
> 
> Joel Rapin aka Zinco
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
> 
> iQA/AwUBQgGbYl3BaPQwrYzwEQLZRwCdHHfu8T1A8kezJxpCPEWj8myvLRkAn3Qq
> aYR8kN2lnxapPguHOxuWzA7f
> =yC5z
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 



More information about the tor-talk mailing list