Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

[Jaco Strauss]

Why not sensor Communist twitters too, while on their feet? Oh, sorry, Communist China is of course too strong currently. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, has been dead and buried for 65 years, so lets rather ban their propaganda?! 

And now we find ourselves with yet another private institution enforcing government's assault on basic freedoms. 

I wonder how far Twitter will go with this. Would someone for e.g. be prevented from tweeting something like: "AH not only sorted out unemployment but also his equivalent of Wall Street" or "The corporal with the funny moustache simply gave the parasitic capitalists their just deserts", etc, etc? Or how would Big Brother deal with Godwin's Law? Perhaps it would become irrelevant as no comparisons to Nazi's would supposedly be allowed in the first place; in case they might on occasion be intended positively...  

I wonder if they would close my account if I were to tweet: "Twitter themselves are now behaving like Nazis"

Today they sensor free speech regarding "Nazism", tomorrow they'll target Libertarianism... 

From the Daily Maverick:

Twitter announced on Thursday that it had developed technology to restrict content in specific countries, saying in a blog post, “As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression”. This was detailed to certain kinds of content, and the post used an example of restricting pro-Nazi content in Germany where it is illegal. This is a turnaround from the company which was used by protestors in Iran, Tunisia and Egypt as a communication tool as recently as last year. The company did say that in the interest of transparency users would be notified when content was blocked. 

[Sean Alexander]

Once again I find myself at odds with some ideas here. Isn't Twitter a private good, and thus the owners of Twitter are perfectly entitled to restrict the use of their product in any way they deem appropriate.

I mean, Malema and co. are certainly not entitled to come onto my property and say whatever they want. I get to tell them to shut the hell up or go somewhere else. Aren't twitter doing the same thing? I know we are in favour of "freedom of speech", but we also all know that "freedom" does not mean the freedom to do anything and everything, and neither does freedom of speech. Certainly private people are allowed to censor people on their private property without being criticised as being against freedom of speech? What right are they infringing on?

Personally I would not want Twitter to censor anything, but if you want an alternative to Twitter, make your own.

I don't see how Twitter are now against freedom of speech. If they are, it would be akin to me called anti-freedom, when I tell a person using my property to use it the way I want it to be used or go somewhere else.

[Jaco Strauss]

And in the same vain it is my right to criticize them. Should they be beyond criticism simply because they are private?

Interesting how populist infringements on Liberty are always used to mask those less obvious ones. Like the government's anti tobacco crusade, you attack an unpopular minority and get decent folk to enforce it.

Syria, Iran, China etc would surely all have "different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression” as Twitter puts it. Yet the example they use to justify compliance is everyone's favourite bogeyman, not for example keeping mum about civilians being slaughtered in Syria, as we speak.

As always "one cannot criticize those criticizing the Nazis" 

Judging from your post, that old trick clearly still works!   

   

2012/1/28 Sean Alexander <sean.ale...@gmail.com>

Once again I find myself at odds with some ideas here. Isn't Twitter a private good, and thus the owners of Twitter are perfectly entitled to restrict the use of their product in any way they deem appropriate.

 So a private good is somehow beyond criticism?

I mean, Malema and co. are certainly not entitled to come onto my property and say whatever they want.

 He cannot even be there without your approval and Twitter doesn't have to give me an account. 

 

I get to tell them to shut the hell up or go somewhere else. Aren't twitter doing the same thing?

I merely asked a rhetorical questions around them theoretically closing my account as would be their right. Would it then not be within my rights to express an opinion on this?   

 

I know we are in favour of "freedom of speech", but we also all know that "freedom" does not mean the freedom to do anything and everything, and neither does freedom of speech.

So I am not allowed to criticize their anti liberty position? How will that help the cause of freedom?   

 

Certainly private people are allowed to censor people on their private property without being criticised as being against freedom of speech? What right are they infringing on?

 What gives them this "right" to be above criticism???  

 

Personally I would not want Twitter to censor anything,

  Thank you, that is my point 

 

but if you want an alternative to Twitter, make your own.

So if I don't like the way the Springboks play, I should shut up and create my own team? And if I don't have my own "General Theory", I cannot criticize Keynes? Sorry, but you do not have to be a chicken, to have ideas about the frying of eggs! 

 

I don't see how Twitter are now against freedom of speech.

So now "Censoring" = "Freedom of Speech". Ever read 1984? 

 

If they are, it would be akin to me called anti-freedom, when I tell a person using my property to use it the way I want it to be used or go somewhere else.

So the person shown the door is not allowed to express his opinion about you?? If possible you would prevent him from expressing such views because you disagree with it? 

[David Joffe]

Twitter isn't doing it voluntarily, they're doing it to comply with
local censorship regulations (also known as 'at the barrel of a
gun'). Both Twitter and its users are kinds of victims in the
situation.

On 28 Jan 2012 at 0:27, Sean Alexander wrote:

Date sent: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:27:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Sean Alexander <sean.ale...@gmail.com>
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/libsa/-/8xqOuBeFRzsJ.
> To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

[David Joffe]

On 28 Jan 2012 at 12:03, Jaco Strauss wrote:
>
> And in the same vain it is my right to criticize
> them. Should they be beyond criticism simply
> because they are private?

I agree, attempting to suppress mere criticism and expression of
dislike seems almost like a bit of a "fascist impulse". I re-read it
and I cannot see anything in Jaco's original post that appears to be
outright incorrect - e.g. I don't seem to see any false claims -
could you clarify which part specifically you think is actually
incorrect, Sean?

[David Joffe]

On 28 Jan 2012 at 0:27, Sean Alexander wrote:

> I don't see how Twitter are now against freedom of speech. If they
> are, it would be akin to me called anti-freedom, when I tell a person
> using my property to use it the way I want it to be used or go
> somewhere else.

It seems to me the situation is more akin to if you had private
property and the government told you, say, that you were not allowed
to have, say, Nazi sympathizers on your property. Twitter is a
private organization. Government is effectively 'on their property'
(in fact, in many countries presumably very literally 'on their
property' and with guns IF they do not comply) and forcing them to
make their programmers do this and that, in order to enforce their
restrictions on freedom of speech against the populace.

[David Joffe]

On 28 Jan 2012 at 17:05, David Joffe wrote:

> It seems to me the situation is more akin to if you had private
> property and the government told you, say, that you were not allowed
> to have, say, Nazi sympathizers on your property.

Actually a better example would be 'not allowed to have Jews on your
property' since that actually happened.

[Jaco Strauss]

Well put David.

And then, after complying with the Nazis and refusing Jews entry to your property, you simply denounce those who dare criticise this as it is "your right to evict folk from your private property"....

This is actually worse than "good men doing nothing" as here we have "good men" acting as the enforcers.....

2012/1/28 David Joffe <david...@tshwanedje.com>

[Sean Alexander]

You're criticism of them is not valid. It's like calling someone, who is not a murderer, a murderer, and then arguing "Well I'm perfectly entitled to criticise them."

Yes you are, and you are still wrong as they are clearly not a murder. 

They are not against free-speech and are not in favour of infringing on anyone's right to free speech. To argue they are, is incorrect. 

Here are your words... "And now we find ourselves with yet another private institution enforcing government's assault on basic freedoms."

What "basic freedom" are they infringing on. Either you have the right to say whatever you want on someone else's property or "system" if you will, or you don't. Quite frankly you don't. You are wrong on this one. Don't try and turn the argument around against me. Its quite simple, either they have infringed on some right or they haven't. If they haven't, don't argue they have and then have a hissy fit when someone points out that they haven't.

I'm not the one who is wrong, why should I defend myself?

As for "Well Twitter don't have to give you account." Have you read there terms and conditions, do they contractual agree to give you the unlimited right to say anything using their network? I highly doubt it. As I said, I also disagree with what Twitter are doing, but I'm not the one giving myself some right I don't have, in order to argue that it is being taken away from me.

PS: Yes, yes I did read Orwell's 1984, it was brilliant.

As for all of this

 "So I am not allowed to criticize their anti liberty position? How will that help the cause of freedom?   

 What gives them this "right" to be above criticism???  

 Thank you, that is my point 

 So if I don't like the way the Springboks play, I should shut up and create my own team? And if I don't have my own "General Theory", I cannot criticize Keynes? Sorry, but you do not have to be a chicken, to have ideas about the frying of eggs! "

I will re-quote your argument above: "And now we find ourselves with yet another private institution enforcing government's assault on basic freedoms."

You can criticise them all you want, it doesn't suddenly make your argument valid just because you have the right to express it. 

Till you explain to me, what basic freedom of yours they are infringing on, you are wrong. Those were your words, not my fault they were a poor choice.

[Sean Alexander]

Apologies for my torrid spelling. Sometimes I get frustrated, type too quickly and sound like a 2-year old.

[David Joffe]

On 28 Jan 2012 at 8:33, Sean Alexander wrote:

> Here are your words... "And now we find ourselves with yet another
> private institution enforcing government's assault on basic freedoms."
>
> What "basic freedom" are they infringing on. Either you have the right
> to say whatever you want on someone else's property or "system" if you
> will, or you don't. Quite frankly you don't. You are wrong on this
> one. Don't try and turn the argument around against me. Its quite
> simple, either they have infringed on some right or they haven't. If

Read Jaco's statement again, it says 'another private institution
enforcing government's assault' --- Twitter is not "infringing" in
this sentence, they're "enforcing". The government is the party
"infringing" in this sentence. I'm sorry Sean, but it's very plain
English.

> they haven't, don't argue they have and then have a hissy fit when
> someone points out that they haven't.

Jaco's statement is perfectly correct, let's break it down into
parts:

1. The origin of the 'assault' is government - as this is to comply
with local censorship laws

2. The 'assault' is against a basic freedom - freedom of speech

3. Twitter is a private institution

4. Twitter is helping (albeit most likely involuntarily) to enforce
this 'assault' - i.e. they are now an extended "arm of the law".

5. 'And now we find ourselves with ...' ... yes, we do now find
ourselves with this, so that part is also correct.

[jacos...@gmail.com]

I believe it is a pretty 'basic freedom' that I should be allowed to say whatever I like about anything. Governments disagree with this and one of the more banal ways in which they justify their assault on this 'basic right' is to ban 'pro nazi' propaganda.

I disagree with this and reject it. Now we have a private company obliging to do government's dirty work for them and I simply criticize that as well.

Not only do I think it is spineless, but also pretty unenforceable as per my examples.

Twitter played an integral part in the so-called Arab Spring and I suppose I'm just pretty disappointed in their change of tune.

That change is their choice. Criticizing it is mine. Your gripe is harder to figure out.

Jaco

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Sean Alexander <sean.ale...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 08:33:57 -0800 (PST)

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/libsa/-/70zcE-8MdzsJ.

[David Joffe]

Love it ..

Person A: 'It is an individual's right to evict Jews from his
property, if he wants'

Person B: 'Government just passed a law that you must evict Jews
from your property'

Person A: 'Great! Government is clearly merely enforcing our
individual private property rights! Why are people complaining?'

On 28 Jan 2012 at 17:36, Jaco Strauss wrote:

Date sent: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:36:17 +0200

Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

From: Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com>
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

[David Joffe]

On 28 Jan 2012 at 16:54, jacos...@gmail.com wrote:

> Not only do I think it is spineless, but also pretty unenforceable as
> per my examples.

...

> That change is their choice. Criticizing it is mine. Your gripe is
> harder to figure out.

Not sure I agree with this part, as I suspect more likely that
they're probably being forced to do this by local laws / regulation
(but I'm assuming so). If that's the case, then I'm not sure they
have much choice in the matter.

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Yes David you right. I also suspect it is more compliance than consent. What I tried to say was that they made a decision to enforce this now. Those laws have been in place Germany for decades.

Yet now they are expanding in markets where free speech are not tolerated and they have taken a decision to oblige. Now they sugar coat it by all of a sudden including the nazis in this censorship enforcing.

Going down this road had been a 'choice' of theirs in that sense,...

That's what I tried to say.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: "David Joffe" <david...@tshwanedje.com>
Sender: li...@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:58:49
To: Libsa<li...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.

[David Joffe]

I'm betting the main goal here is to be allowed to enter China,
since that's a huge potential market in which their Chinese
equivalent is thriving (market-wise Germany is not the big issue,
they're already 'in' Germany either way). Just reading up quickly,
sounds like they've been totally blocked in China until now. Being
'blocked in China' is still ultimately a matter of force, I would
say, and an attempt to work around it by complying with their
censorship laws would still be something they're being forced to do.
I don't know enough about the legal details here to comment on e.g.
Germany but the China case seems pretty clear.

On 28 Jan 2012 at 17:11, jacos...@gmail.com wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi"
content....

To: "Libsa" <li...@googlegroups.com>
From: jacos...@gmail.com
Date sent: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:11:07 +0000

[Erik Peers]

So Jaco, to be totally consistent you can't pay a single cent in tax. Otherwise you to are supporting the states actions by giving in to force like Twitter has. And if you have employees and you collect their PAYEE then you are a spineless private individual doing governments dirty work.(your words, just a change of context)

[David Joffe]

Yeah, unfortunately the reality is that corporations are not as
powerful as we like to think they are, much as we'd like to see
companies like Twitter 'stick it to the man', so to speak. Twitter
might be 'big', relatively, and a 'hot topic', but let's face it,
it's just a business, it only has about 600 employees and
US$140million revenues and does not even have the legal ability to
use force even *against* the direct imposition of this kind of force
on *it* by these governments .... a company like Twitter (or even
Google or MS) is simply no match for e.g. the Chinese government
with its size and might and guns and tanks. I *extremely* doubt
Twitter's executives said to themselves "hey, we would really like
to censor our users" - on the contrary - this was probably a very
difficult decision - to acquiesce to force, just to exercise a most
natural of rights --- namely, to enter into mutually voluntary and
rightful business relations with the people of China.

On 28 Jan 2012 at 21:27, Erik Peers wrote:

Date sent: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:27:01 +0200

Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

From: Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>

To: li...@googlegroups.com
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

>

[jacos...@gmail.com]

No Erik, I live in SA and if I don't pay I go to jail. Twitter doesn't *have* to go to china. Staying out of china won't see them going to jail. Quite the contrary ;-)

And they have been flaunting the German anti nazi legislation for years. You don't find the change of heart suspicious, if not downright deplorable?

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:27:01 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

[Erik Peers]

If I understand you correctly Twitter should stay out of China rather than be complicit in restricting free speech?

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Yes you understand me correctly.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:18:29 +0200

[David Joffe]

They may not 'have to' go to China, but surely peace-abiding humans
living on one continent have some kind of 'natural' right to engage
in mutually voluntary business with other peace-abiding humans who
happen to live on another continent, especially if it's all just
'virtual'? Twitter has a right to offer services to Chinese citizens
and Chinese citizens have the right to use those services ... that
Twitter is "blocked" is in itself a force-based violation of the
rights of both Twitter and the citizens of China. It seems to me
Twitter have a right to offer services to the Chinese people; it's
not really a "choice" to stay out so far if they have been held out
using force.

On 28 Jan 2012 at 20:47, jacos...@gmail.com wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....
To: "Libsa" <li...@googlegroups.com>
From: jacos...@gmail.com

Date sent: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:47:56 +0000

>
> No Erik, I live in SA and if I don't pay I go to jail. Twitter doesn't
> *have* to go to china. Staying out of china won't see them going to
> jail. Quite the contrary ;-)
>
> And they have been flaunting the German anti nazi legislation for years.
> You don't find the change of heart suspicious, if not downright
> deplorable?
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>

[David Joffe]

I can see that viewpoint, and I don't think it's 'wrong' per se
either. (Stretching the analogy, this would be not unlike a German,
say, choosing to leave Germany rather than being forced to kick Jews
out of his home ... or perhaps, choosing not to move to Germany
during that time.)

Of course, we've been round this block before, I recall a similar
debate from when Google entered China, censoring their search
results. Google caught a huge amount of flak, yet there was nary a
peep regarding their competitors like MS and Yahoo who were already
in there and censoring away since years earlier :/.

On 28 Jan 2012 at 21:40, jacos...@gmail.com wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....
To: "Libsa" <li...@googlegroups.com>
From: jacos...@gmail.com

Date sent: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:40:37 +0000

>
> Yes you understand me correctly.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>

> From: Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>
> Sender: li...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:18:29 +0200
> To: <li...@googlegroups.com>
> ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....
>
> If I understand you correctly Twitter should stay out of China rather
> than be complicit in restricting free speech?
> On 28 Jan 2012 5:47 PM, <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Erik, I live in SA and if I don't pay I go to jail. Twitter
> doesn't *have* to go to china. Staying out of china won't see them
> going to jail. Quite the contrary ;-)
>
> And they have been flaunting the German anti nazi legislation for
> years. You don't find the change of heart suspicious, if not
> downright deplorable?
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>

[Erik Peers]

I this not the sanctions vs constructive engagement argument?  What will do more good for free speech, if Twitter boycotts or if Twitter enters China with restrictions?

[jacos...@gmail.com]

British Airways didn't boycott SA, but also did not segregate their flights in terms of race. A few years ago, however, they started to segregate some middle eastern flights on gender, in compliance with backward sensitivities.

In my opinion the former engagement had been constructive, the latter not.

Jaco

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

From: Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 01:22:15 +0200

[David Joffe]

Hot on the heels, Google to use a similar method to Twitter to
censor blogs:

http://mashable.com/2012/01/31/google-twitter-country-censorship/

On 29 Jan 2012 at 8:02, jacos...@gmail.com wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....
To: "Libsa" <li...@googlegroups.com>
From: jacos...@gmail.com

Date sent: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:02:14 +0000

> British Airways didn't boycott SA, but also did not segregate their
> flights in terms of race. A few years ago, however, they started to
> segregate some middle eastern flights on gender, in compliance with
> backward sensitivities.
>
> In my opinion the former engagement had been constructive, the latter
> not.
>
> Jaco
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

That's great. I love it when private companies discriminate against idiots,
bigots and freaks. That is self-regulation and the pressure which bring
about spontaneous order without the use of force. Competition in a free
market will keep it reasonable i.e. if you don't like it, shift to Yahoo.
;-)

S.

-----Original Message-----
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Joffe
Sent: 02 February 2012 00:08
To: Libsa
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

Hot on the heels, Google to use a similar method to Twitter to censor blogs:

http://mashable.com/2012/01/31/google-twitter-country-censorship/

On 29 Jan 2012 at 8:02, jacos...@gmail.com wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....
To: "Libsa" <li...@googlegroups.com>
From: jacos...@gmail.com
Date sent: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:02:14 +0000

> British Airways didn't boycott SA, but also did not segregate their
> flights in terms of race. A few years ago, however, they started to
> segregate some middle eastern flights on gender, in compliance with
> backward sensitivities.
>
> In my opinion the former engagement had been constructive, the latter
> not.
>
> Jaco

> Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device

> > Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device

> >
> > From: Erik Peers <erik...@gmail.com>
> > Sender: li...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:18:29 +0200
> > To: <li...@googlegroups.com>
> > ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi"
> content....
> >
> > If I understand you correctly Twitter should stay out of China
> rather
> > than be complicit in restricting free speech?
> > On 28 Jan 2012 5:47 PM, <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No Erik, I live in SA and if I don't pay I go to jail. Twitter
> > doesn't *have* to go to china. Staying out of china won't see
> them
> > going to jail. Quite the contrary ;-)
> >
> > And they have been flaunting the German anti nazi legislation for
> > years. You don't find the change of heart suspicious, if not
> > downright deplorable?

> > Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device

> > > Sent from my BlackBerryR wireless device

[Jaco Strauss]

Would you love it as much when they start discriminating against "idiots, bigots and freaks" like me and you? What happened to Voltaire?

Remember that the one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. The difference between a hero and a traitor is a function of the outcome of the conflict.

All these measures of mind control should be resisted and if that means moving to Yahoo (if they are not already doing the same), then so be it...

2012/2/2 Stephen vJ (Gmail) <sjaar...@gmail.com>

[John Pretorius]

Jaco I think you are missing the point – because there is competition, if I don’t like being branded as a terrorist, I can go to Yahoo.

 

 

John R Pretorius

--

[David Joffe]

They're doing it to make it easier to comply with local laws. That
IS force.

On 2 Feb 2012 at 11:39, Stephen vJ (Gmail) wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com
From: "Stephen vJ \(Gmail\)" <sjaar...@gmail.com>
To: <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi"
content....
Date sent: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:39:21 +0200
Organization: Personal - Gmail

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

Yes, I would actually. In fact, that is my point. Google, Twitter and others are welcome to discriminate between us, just as I discriminate between them. I think I have rather discriminating taste when it comes to others and I am rather proud of that. There are (or were) societies in which you would be considered an outcast for thinking that killing and eating humans, especially of the virgin variety, was abnormal. Some cultures find it acceptable to spit in the streets, some to promote nationalization and some to make fires and roast cows in their back yards. What barbarians we humans are ! And I'm fine with that - who are we to judge others ? What makes our subjective preferences better than those of the folks around us ? As long as their preferences are not imposed on me by force or threat, that is great. In this case, Google is not a public service which you or anyone else has a right to. If you are a Nazi sympathiser, you can go join other Nazi's over at Yahoo. Google chooses not to associate with racists, thus I will find Google to be a much nicer place as a result of the absence of Nazis. The Nazi's will find a smaller number, but stronger concentration of like-minded buggers over there... which will make rounding them up later so much easier. Improvements all around then.

 

S.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss

Sent: 02 February 2012 12:01

--

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

So you want us to denounce Google and Twitter for complying with local
regulations ? Why should we not denounce you for paying taxes then ?

The blame should be on the governments which force them to do these things,
not on them for doing it.

[David Joffe]

On 2 Feb 2012 at 13:23, Stephen vJ (Gmail) wrote:

> So you want us to denounce Google and Twitter for complying with local
> regulations ? Why should we not denounce you for paying taxes then ?

Where did I say that, are you imagining things perhaps?

[David Joffe]

It won't be long before all the major companies are doing this - the
tech is not that hard. I wouldn't be surprised if software and
hardware vendors start building this functionality into their
products (e.g. Cisco routers or website server software), making it
far, far easier for any site owner to 'comply with local laws'. Some
countries may even make it mandatory to segragate your site and
customize it on a per-country basis if it 'might contain
objectionable content'. How many governments would resist the spread
of technology that enables governments to censor content they don't
like - at best governments of countries that have freedom of speech
will probably be neutral about it.

On 2 Feb 2012 at 12:55, John Pretorius wrote:

From: "John Pretorius" <jrp...@gmail.com>
To: <li...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

Date sent: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:55:35 +0200
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

>
> Jaco I think you are missing the point - because there is competition, if I don't like being branded

[David Joffe]

On 2 Feb 2012 at 13:23, Stephen vJ (Gmail) wrote:

> So you want us to denounce Google and Twitter for complying with local
> regulations ? Why should we not denounce you for paying taxes then ?
> The blame should be on the governments which force them to do these
> things, not on them for doing it.

OK, Stephen, my mind is officially blown .. I just quickly scanned
through my posts in this thread over the last few days on this very
topic, and I have made NO LESS THAN SEVEN individual posts stating
specifically and consistently that Twitter was merely complying with
local laws and under threat of force (heck, I have practically been
spamming my point to the list). My first post on the matter was:

"Twitter isn't doing it voluntarily, they're doing it to comply with
local censorship regulations (also known as 'at the barrel of a
gun'). Both Twitter and its users are kinds of victims in the
situation."

Respectfully: I had wondered before, but now it's blatantly clear:
You really do not even bother to read someone's position AT ALL
before simply pulling a response right out of your a.. and making
false implication about what they are saying. It must be easy to win
debates when you're always arguing against your own entirely
fictional strawmen. I mean this with the utmost respect - I don't
think you are a fool at all - but really, up your game a bit in
sticking to and applying reason within debate ;)

- David

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

Tit for tat.
S.

-----Original Message-----
From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Joffe
Sent: 02 February 2012 16:06
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

- David

[David Joffe]

Funny, normally when someone demonstrates I've made some glaringly
obvious blunder, I admit it and retract (in fact, normally an
apology would be the right thing to do in such situations - e.g. a
simple "you are right, I'm sorry, I mistakenly attributed a view to
you that you do not hold") - that's just part of being devoted to an
ideal goal of reason and rationality and intellectual honesty. But I
suppose not everyone is devoted to those goals. The absolute last
thing I would do when I've made such an obvious blunder is falsely
attempt to imply the other person is guilty of same - adding a
second false accusation to the first.

- David

On 2 Feb 2012 at 16:19, Stephen vJ (Gmail) wrote:

Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

From: "Stephen vJ \(Gmail\)" <sjaar...@gmail.com>
To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: RE: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi"
content....
Date sent: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 16:19:49 +0200
Organization: Personal - Gmail

> Tit for tat.

[Jaco Strauss]

Thanks David, for me this cuts to the chase.

I am in favour of everything that furthers the cause of Liberty. In my opinion Freedom of Expression advances that cause, while censorship stifles it. So when censorship expands, I see it as my duty to object to it.

I believe I have the right to express such an opinion, just as I support the rights of those who disagree with me, to criticize my stance.

This begs the question as to "whose position is more conducive to advancing the cause of Freedom?" The guy criticizing the censor, or the guy criticizing the censor's critic?"    

Jaco

2012/2/2 David Joffe <david...@tshwanedje.com>

[Jaco Strauss]

@Stephen:

The Nazi's will find a smaller number, but stronger concentration of like-minded buggers over there... which will make rounding them up later so much easier. - Stephen  

You are joking right? Or do you actually really trust "whoever" will do the eventual 'rounding up', to only take out the "baddies" (those you don't like) and leave the "goodies". (Those you like)?!

Have you learnt nothing from human history? Today "they" might round up the nasty Nazi's, but tomorrow they will round up the Jews, the intelligentsia, the Priests, the gays, the farmers, etc, whomever becomes the undesirables of the day...

J

[Stephen vJ (Gmail)]

Of course it is a joke.

--

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Different words ate normally used for a reason. To convey different ideas for example.

To 'criticize' is therefore not the same as to 'denounce'. I often criticize my kids yet have never denounced them.

J

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

[jacos...@gmail.com]

Thought so. All your posts since you asked the question about "force" I reckon.....

On a humorous level they definitely make more sense

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

From: "Stephen vJ \(Gmail\)" <sjaar...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:48:58 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

[Trevor Watkins]

Whoo! You kids really get quite excited about your freedom to express yourselves.  Some points:

1. Everyone has freedom of expression, if still physically able to express themselves. Watch Bruce Willis crapping out his captors in any number of gory flicks, no matter how many times they punch him in the face. I just said "diddly diddly poo" and nobody could stop me.

2. You do not have immunity from the consequences of expressing yourself freely. At the most fundamental level, my opinion (and everyone else's) of you will be modified by what you say, freely (take note Jaco and David). And, of course, I am free to express my new opinion of you to anyone who will listen (but may be putting my own reputation at risk as a result). If you're Bruce Willis, expressing your opinion of the mafia boss may get you another smack in the head. If you're a chinese citizen, expressing your opinion may get you 10 years in jail. As libertarians we should be defending the right of people to say whatever they want, without consequences, other than to their reputation.

3. You do not have a right to express yourself using my property without my permission. You may not snatch my loud-hailer from me to shout your own opinion. That is not a freedom of expression issue, it is a property issue. Likewise, you may not insist that my system must carry your opinion whether I like it or not. (For example, it is my right to censor anyone I (dis)like on this libsa googlegroup since I "own" it). It is Google's right to stop providing this service to me for whatever reason. I may not demand that others be of service to me (except when I have a valid contract with them). Yes, I can express an opinion when they don't provide the service that I darn well want, and I can stamp my little feet too, but that may just end up lowering other people's opinion of me. It certainly does not give me any rights over the providers of a service that I do not own.

But that is just my opinion. I hope you think better of me having read it, but I can't demand that you do.

Trevor Watkins

[David Joffe]

On 5 Feb 2012 at 17:24, Trevor Watkins wrote:

> 2. You do not have immunity from the consequences of expressing
> yourself freely. At the most fundamental level, my opinion (and
> everyone else's) of you will be modified by what you say, freely (take
> note Jaco and David).

Please point out where I've crossed any kind of line. I've done
nothing wrong and stand behind whatever I've said - if you've seen
fault somewhere, I assure you you have made an error in judgement.

- David

[David Joffe]

On 5 Feb 2012 at 17:24, Trevor Watkins wrote:

> 2. You do not have immunity from the consequences of expressing
> yourself freely. At the most fundamental level, my opinion (and
> everyone else's) of you will be modified by what you say, freely (take
> note Jaco and David).

If you think less of *me* for doing nothing other than standing by
what is correct, stating what is correct, and standing by it, well
I'm afraid that reflects on you, not on me.

[Jaco Strauss]

In Blue

2012/2/5 Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com>

Whoo! You kids really get quite excited about your freedom to express yourselves.  

 My last comment was a perhaps a little facetious, but it gets frustrating to debate an issue for 50 odd posts and then, when the other guy finds himself in a corner, he turns around and claims he was only "joking"....  

 

Some points:

1. Everyone has freedom of expression, if still physically able to express themselves. Watch Bruce Willis crapping out his captors in any number of gory flicks, no matter how many times they punch him in the face. I just said "diddly diddly poo" and nobody could stop me.

2. You do not have immunity from the consequences of expressing yourself freely. At the most fundamental level, my opinion (and everyone else's) of you will be modified by what you say, freely (take note Jaco and David).

  Not sure what you are implying, but it cuts both ways

  

And, of course, I am free to express my new opinion of you to anyone who will listen (but may be putting my own reputation at risk as a result). If you're Bruce Willis, expressing your opinion of the mafia boss may get you another smack in the head. If you're a chinese citizen, expressing your opinion may get you 10 years in jail. As libertarians we should be defending the right of people to say whatever they want, without consequences, other than to their reputation. 

3. You do not have a right to express yourself using my property without my permission.

  Obviously 

 

You may not snatch my loud-hailer from me to shout your own opinion. That is not a freedom of expression issue, it is a property issue. Likewise, you may not insist that my system must carry your opinion whether I like it or not.

  Obviously, but how is this relevant to the thread? You are missing the point in the same way Sean and Stephen did. I criticised Twitter's decision to censor, not deny their right to do so. I also think it is pathetic that they use the Nazi bluff to disguise their real motive - entry to China.

It still begs the question, who is doing more for liberty here, the guy criticizing the censor, or the guy criticizing the censor's critic?

 

(For example, it is my right to censor anyone I (dis)like on this libsa googlegroup since I "own" it).   Nobody denied this  It is Google's right to stop providing this service to me for whatever reason.  Nobody denied this either  I may not demand that others be of service to me (except when I have a valid contract with them).  How is this relevant to the thread? Have you read it?  Yes, I can express an opinion when they don't provide the service that I darn well want, and I can stamp my little feet too, but that may just end up lowering other people's opinion of me. It certainly does not give me any rights over the providers of a service that I do not own.

   I'm not sure if this is some sort of warning, please be more direct. If for example you prefer to hear only your own views on a group you "own", just say so and I'll leave.  

But that is just my opinion. I hope you think better of me having read it, but I can't demand that you do.

Trevor Watkins

 

  As Leon might say, it is not binary. Opinions we hold of others are not necessarily "better" or "worse", they can also be things like "bewildered". A libertarian forum censoring debate around freedom of expression would, for example,  surely leave me bewildered. 

  But that is just my opinion 

Jaco

 

On 4 February 2012 17:04, <jacos...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thought so. All your posts since you asked the question about "force" I reckon.....

On a humorous level they definitely make more sense

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

---

From: "Stephen vJ \(Gmail\)" <sjaar...@gmail.com>

Sender: li...@googlegroups.com

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 23:48:58 +0200

To: <li...@googlegroups.com>

ReplyTo: li...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

Of course it is a joke.

S.

 

From: li...@googlegroups.com [mailto:li...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jaco Strauss
Sent: 02 February 2012 17:28
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.

--
Jaco Strauss
BI Data Analyst
PBT Group

[David Joffe]

Assuming I'm still on this group; for me, I must say I tend to be
more concerned with 'facts' than 'opinions'. These are what appear
to be the facts of the matter:

1. Two of the largest 'personal online publishing' services in the
world (Blogger and Twitter) are implementing technologies that make
enforcing various global censorship laws much easier (technology
sure to find its way into more and more online services). This
should be a concern (you would think) to anyone who cares about
freedom of expression.

2. It appears to me particularly unlikely that they are doing this
voluntarily. As I've pointed out approximately eight times now, they
are doing this to comply with local censorship laws - i.e. they are
being forced to do it. This is thus NOT a case of private companies
deciding the terms of doing business with its users - this is a case
of governments *dictating* the terms of business.

3. Jaco has a right to complain as much as he wants (contrary to the
ongoing false claims, he hasn't "demanded" that they should be
"forced" as private companies to "carry his message" - I keep seeing
these false accusations flowing, unaccompanied by evidence) and
complaining about such large losses to the cause of the freedom of
expression in a fact-based way is actually a good thing.

4. As I've already pointed out, my view differs from Jaco in that I
see both these companies and their users as largely victims in this
scenario. This is borne out by facts - local censorship laws aren't
just "pretty-please, it-would-be-nice" "requests".

5. Using Nazis, someone we can all supposedly agree to dislike, is
obviously a PR move to sugarcoat this. In fact, parts of Europe have
censorship laws of Nazi views ... it's not because these companies
suddenly woke up and decided that they morally felt like fighting
Nazis - it's possible, but that would sure be a stretch, and would
make one wonder why they need the technology to be that complex as
to slice up the Net on so many country lines.

6. The only people I can see "snatching loud-hailers" from anyone is
governments, in the form of local censorship laws. Neither Jaco nor
myself has "snatched a loud-hailer" from anyone, how bizarre. And
Google and Twitter are compelled to snatch loud hailers by force;
they are as a matter of fact now 'the arm of the law'.

7. Yes, Google and Twitter's "property rights" should allow them to
decide what content is carried on their servers. That's not what's
happening; their property rights are being violated by the
government, not by those complaining about censorship. That
government can come in to a business like Google or Twitter and
force them to carry or not carry certain messages, as "libertarians"
you should be "fighting for" their right not to have that happen.

8. My response to Stephen might have seemed extreme but if one
bothers to try understand the "context", I stand by it "in context",
and in fact I'm the one still politely waiting for a retraction of
Stephen's obviously mistaken misrepresentation.

9. The people of Twitter and Google and the people of various
countries have a *natural right* to do business with one another
(e.g. for those people to use the services of these companies) at
terms THEY agree to, without interference providing they are not
committing any crimes in the process of doing so. The interference
to all of their ability's to to exercise their natural rights in the
form of local censorship laws and technologies like 'the great
firewall' constitutes a violation of natural rights on both sides.
We shouldn't even be thinking ask if/why Twitter 'should be allowed
to enter', but rather, if/why they should NOT have been allowed to
enter ... violating their natural rights should be a CRIME and we
really should be demanding that the criminals be prosecuted, if we
had any moral sense at all. (But I understand if we've all been
brainwashed by now to be convinced that we may only ever act "by
permission" from some government agency - it takes some conscious
unbrainwashing to stop thinking in those terms.)

- David

On 6 Feb 2012 at 8:18, Jaco Strauss wrote:

Date sent: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 08:18:44 +0200

Subject: Re: [Libsa] Re: Twitter to restrict "pro-Nazi" content....

From: Jaco Strauss <jacos...@gmail.com>
To: li...@googlegroups.com
Send reply to: li...@googlegroups.com

[Sean Alexander]

Thanks for Stephen's multiple responses! Love listening to the guy, would hate to argue with him...

That was my whole point. A private company cannot "commit the crime of censorship", which in my mind, means depriving you of the right to free speech/expression, if you have no such right. You don't have the right to freely express yourself on private property or systems. Arguing you do, in my mind, goes against the cause of liberty, as I define it. (I agree that Freedom of Speech/Expression on PUBLIC GROUNDS should not be limited in any way, which is why I disagree with the SA Constitution which places 3 limits on speech for example, but that is because of the problem created by the existence of public property.)

Secondly, as far as I understand it, German's, posting from German IP addresses are restricted from posting or promulgating pro-Nazi content. Bearing in mind the German Government has made it illegal to do so. The rest of the world, where it is legal (Based on that countries laws) to post such content,  are freely allowed to do so. So in other words, Twitter and Google etc. are Companies which have decided, considering all the "hate" directed from the state at Internet Companies which promote the unhindered system of the web (Such as Pirate Bay, Rapidshare etc.) to make it difficult for people to commit crimes in their own countries using their "systems" or "platforms".

In other words, if a country has banned, for example, war propaganda, like South Africa, then in theory Twitter have said that they don't want to anger the South African government by providing a platform on which the South African citizens may promote war propaganda, and thus commit a crime. So our IP addresses are banned from posting such content, in theory. I have no idea how suh a thing would be enforced in practice. In any case we could always create a new Twitter Account and use a free proxy to get around it. Which is well within their rights to do and does not contradict any right that I am aware of, either legally in South Africa or from a Libertarian viewpoint of rights (Or at least how I understand it).

Most internet forums are moderated so that people don't start bizarre "flame wars", to use internet jargon and thus discourage other people from joining in the debate or discussion. It is designed to promote a friendly environment that usually attracts the most people, sometimes certain kinds of people, to stay and join a community and ostracise "undesirables" however defined by the owner of the website/forum/system.

Basically I don't see this as some great moral tragedy that a company has "given in" to state bullying. I see no need for an outcry. Not when most people here pay taxes or benefit from the roads or other public services. Yes, we gave in to the bullying. 

Yes, make the point, personally I feel some major protest is pointless, not when all they are doing is really complying with the SA Constitution, and I've yet to hear the same outcry against the Freedom of Expression limitations in our constitution. I think most of us would argue the constitution should not limit free speech at all, I just don't see the same fervour against our constitution as I do against Twitter.

This is why I still think your original argument was that these private companies have somehow gone against libertarian ethics, based on what you've said and the tone of your original post.

I don't see how any right or freedom has been infringed on by private companies.

But the most important thing which I tried to point out, which you've now regarded as something bad on my part, was that you did two things:

1. You criticised someone. (Great, no problem, make more noise if you want.)

2. In your criticism you made a claim ("And now we find ourselves with yet another private institution enforcing government's assault on basic freedoms.") - Again, private companies cannot commit the "crime" of censorship. They are NOT acting as agents of the state. They are not enforcing the states censorship on public property and they are neither enforcing the states censorship on other private property. At most, they've given in to the states bullying, more likely they've decided to voluntarily and strategically do something governments would appreciate or view as positive (I.E. Self-regulate).

I just think you are making a lot of noise for what is happening. But that's just my opinion.

So for your question "whose position is more conducive to advancing the cause of Freedom?" The guy criticizing the censor, or the guy criticizing the censor's critic?"  

It would depend if your criticism is valid (Not the fact you are criticising someone). If your criticism is not valid, as no "crime against freedom" of censorship has been committed (As I defined it earlier), and the guy who is criticising the original critic points this out, then the latter could not be argued to be against advancing the cause of Freedom. At worst, he is pointing out an error in the thinking or phrasing of the original critics argument. Since this thread has numerous posts on the topic, I think the biggest problem to me is your position is still unclear. I interpreted your argument as if you argued that Twitter were infringing some right. You took multiple posts to clarify that this was not your argument, they merely gave in to the bully, yet in your question above you again bring up the cause of "Freedom". It's quite frustrating. All I've tried to do is point out people have no freedom to express themselves on private property or systems. Either I'm right with this argument or I'm not. If I'm right, then I cannot be the guy who's position is "less conducive to advancing the cause of Freedom". If I am wrong, then please, clearly state you feel you are entitled to express yourself on private property/platforms/system and please make your argument. 

I shouldn't have to come here and "defend my commitment to freedom" with your question above, not when you haven't argued against the point I tried to make. I try and debate often on less "informed" forums than this one and get quite frustrated by the responses and lack of thought there and in particular the debating tactics used by opponents. On these forums I simply try to listen and learn because most people here are far better informed and read on libertarianism/ethics/economics in general and thus even if I disagree, the arguments are generally very good. I didn't expect it so difficult to make a point and get the other party to simply say "agree or disagree and why" on this forum Jaco.

Do you have the right to express yourself on private property, yes or no. (Please don't duplicate quote/response each paragraph written here by me. All I want is a simple yes or no to the question.)

[Sean Alexander]

I think where the miscommunication is the way you argue Twitter is using force.

The state is the one using force. Twitter is telling people that they are going to comply with the state's laws and then asking them if they still want to use their product. 

The 2 parties in my mind cannot be considered in the same. There is a difference between the two and I don't feel the latter warrants a mass protest or other similar response. In fact I still don't see how Twitter is forcing people to do anything.

I cannot see how, as a service provider, voluntarily providing a service to the people, that when I reduce the options of my product, I am using force. I mean its like if the veggie and fruit shop stopped selling apples because the state doesn't like apples and they don't want to get in trouble. I don't think the argument would make any sense if people went around saying they have the right to buy apples from my store and I am using force on them to prevent this.

Maybe we just have a different idea about what force is and is not. To me, complying with state laws is not force, not unless I infringe on one of your rights. You could perhaps make this argument against companies paying PAYE or witholding taxes to the state...haven't thought about that, but Twitter...I'm sorry I can't see it.

[Sean Alexander]

Interesting how different we see it. Now that the Jews/Nazi's have been turned around so the Nazi's are the "bad guys" as is should be, the tactic is used to immediately frame or infer that since the Nazi's are doing it, it must be immoral.

I believe I heard/read Walter Williams commenting on Rand Paul's view on the Civil Rights Act and he made the point that under American laws, it is completely legal for a person to have a pro-Nazi rally on public property, and completely illegal for a Jewish restuarant owner to refuse to serve them (In terms of the Civil Rights Act). The point he was trying to make and has made in other video's, is that people have the right to allow or disallow people and discriminate in their private capacity and the state does not.

I applaud Jaco for his original defence of the Nazi's from the state, but I am in favour of private discrimination, especially against the Nazi's. And when private people do discriminate against the Nazi's, I'll applaud them and not sit by doing nothing.

[David Joffe]

On 6 Feb 2012 at 11:05, Sean Alexander wrote:

> In other words, if a country has banned, for example, war propaganda,
> like South Africa, then in theory Twitter have said that they don't
> want to anger the South African government by providing a platform on
> which the South African citizens may promote war propaganda, and thus
> commit a crime. So our IP addresses are banned from posting such
> content, in theory. I have no idea how suh a thing would be enforced
> in practice.

Just to clarify, this is technically trivial to implement. We've
implemented country detection (though not for censorship purposes)
in some of our online services - it's really easy these days, and
even the free Geo-IP databases are of fairly good quality.

> In any case we could always create a new Twitter Account and use a
> free proxy to get around it.

No actually you can't, because the main point being discussed here
is not relating to segregating POSTERS, but rather, segregating all
VIEWERS. In other words, when a South African VISITS Twitter (or
Blogger) from a South African IP address, they see a special
filtered version in which everything the South African government
claimed was objectionable, has been hidden (and likewise for any
individual country - e.g. presumably in countries like Saudi Arabia
sites that are pro-womens-rights may be invisible). You are just not
going to get any significant number of citizens on free anonymizing
proxies, it isn't going to happen.

> Which is well within their rights to do and does not contradict any
> right that I am aware of, either legally in South Africa or from a
> Libertarian viewpoint of rights (Or at least how I understand it).

If I own an online personal publishing company and government holds
a gun to my head and forces me to create a segregated service
against my wishes, it's rather beside the point that it was within
my right to create a segregated service had I so wished in the first
place.

And this is not voluntary. Local censorship regulations are not
"please, we'd appreciate it, pretty please with a cherry on top"
laws. When we are talking about regulations, let's not beat around
the bush and sugarcoat it - we are talking about initating force and
implementing prior restraint against the natural rights of humans.
The real criminals are the ones interfering with the exercise of
rightful action / natural rights (against both the companies and
their users), and I strongly believe that moral outrage (and
corrective action) should always be targeted at the real criminals
(implementors of 'great firewalls' and other such crap), never at
the victims (e.g. Twitter) or at the innocent bystanders catching
shrapnel (their users). It's important to correctly identify who the
victims are in a given situation. Expressing outrage at someone who
is merely complaining about the whole situation (e.g. Jaco), while
saying not a peep about the real criminals interfering with rightful
action, I don't know, it grates my moral senses. I'm not a moral
relativist (nor a moral nihilist in the practical sense), I think we
can deduce that some things are morally wrong, and forcing a company
to implement censorship, thereby interfering with rightful action,
is morally wrong.

[David Joffe]

On 6 Feb 2012 at 11:05, Sean Alexander wrote:

> That was my whole point. A private company cannot "commit the crime of
> censorship", which in my mind, means depriving you of the right to
> free

I can't see who you are replying to, the context is gone, but just
to be clear, nowhere did I even remotely say or imply a private
company 'committed the crime of censorship'. I did say that these
companies have unwittingly become 'the arm of the law' - but that is
something quite different to committing a crime, and is merely a
neutral statement of fact with no value judgement and no claim or
accusation of liability.

And no matter how one spins this, it's a blow to the cause of
freedom of expression.

The fact that governments can force companies to enact censorship,
and then in the process even manage to convince 'libertarians' that
its hands are squeaky clean because you know, morally it's just
"private companies exercising their right to block content" - oof -
it's amazing and stomach-churning - they really have us all
thoroughly confused and right where they want us.

[Trevor Watkins]

You say they have "US" all thoroughly confused. I beg to differ.

All these issues eventually devolve down to just 1 question - was consent obtained? If Twitter cuts its product offering of its own choice, one can assume that this was done with their (Twitter's) consent, and no freedom or right is impaired. If Twitter felt obliged to cut its product offering pre-emptively to avoid future harm, then that is also their, perhaps regrettable, choice. This threat of future harm from the state is despicable and as always, the state should be strongly criticised. However, Twitter can't be accused of any non-consensual act or attack on rights or freedom - they can only be accused of cowardice.

This debate raises a very old question - does the individual have an obligation to resist unjust laws, no matter the personal cost? I believe that the individual SHOULD always act within the consent paradigm, but might abandon it in the interests of self-preservation. If an individual acts without consent he/she must still be judged and punished, although extenuating circumstances may have to be taken into account.

Companies that collect PAYE on behalf of government are just as guilty as Poles who collected Jews on behalf of the Nazis.

Trevor Watkins - Base Software
bas...@gmail.com 083 44 11 721 - 042 293 1405 - (fax)0866 532 363
PO Box 3302, Jeffreys Bay, 6330

[David Joffe]

On 7 Feb 2012 at 9:47, Trevor Watkins wrote:
>
> You say they have "US" all thoroughly confused. I beg to differ.
>
> All these issues eventually devolve down to just 1 question - was
> consent obtained? If Twitter cuts its product offering of its own
> choice, one can assume that this was done with their (Twitter's)
> consent, and no freedom or right is impaired. If Twitter felt obliged to
> cut its product offering pre-emptively to avoid future harm, then that
> is also their, perhaps regrettable, choice. This threat of future harm
> from the state is despicable and as always, the state should be strongly
> criticised.

Wow, finally, an admission that this is not "just" a "property
issue", contrary to your previous message (where you said, quote,

"That is not a freedom of expression issue, it is a property issue"

while arguing that this was somehow just Twitter exercising their
private rights). We're making progress. Thanks for finally starting
to say a little bit of what I've been saying since the very first
email, though it's strange that you say "I beg to differ" when you
start finally agreeing with me.

> However, Twitter can't be accused of any non-consensual act or attack
> on rights or freedom - they can only be accused of cowardice.

And where did I say that Twitter can be accused of attacks on
freedom? Please, quote me on where I said that. Honestly, do you
even read what I write before you respond? Flabbergasted, and
unfortunately really just have no more time for this - discussion is
one thing when people read what you write, it's another when people
just respond to fictional strawmen that are in their head. I defy
you to tell me where Twitter can be 'accused of attacks on freedom',
I've gone literally blue in the face now saying otherwise and this
is still the type of response I get. This is my last email on this
topic.