[118634] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ISP port blocking practice/Free Speech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Sun Oct 25 10:19:58 2009
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:19:13 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4653035@blitz.dartware.com>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "Richard E. Brown" <Richard.E.Brown@dartware.com>,
"nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Your scholar is wrong -- or he is giving the simplified explanation for chi=
ldren and others incapable of rational though and understanding, and you ar=
e believing the summary because it is simpler for you than understanding th=
e underlying rational.
Notice that in both cases your presumption of prohibition is based on the a=
ctualization of a consequence. It is the intentional causing of the conseq=
uence that is the Criminal Act, and not the method by which that consequenc=
e is actualized. In other words, it is the causing of panic, mayhem and in=
jury that is the Criminal Act which cannot be saved by your first amendment=
protections, and the shouting FIRE is but an example of an item WHICH MAY =
CAUSE such a result. It is not the shouting FIRE which is wrong, it is the=
mayhem that it causes. In any event of the cause, prior restraint is proh=
ibited in any system of positive law. (Though I have already pointed out t=
hat both the UK and the United States are no longer systems of positive law=
, but rather have become Fascist Dictatorships and a priori prohibition is =
a hallmark of such regimes).
Anyway, if you fail to understand cause and effect and the difference betwe=
en them when you have obviously passed the age of four years, it is unlikel=
y that I will be able to educate you at this point in your life.
This is OT and we will not continue this any further.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard E. Brown [mailto:Richard.E.Brown@dartware.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 25 October, 2009 10:05
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: ISP port blocking practice/Free Speech
>
> > > Free speech doesn't include the freedom to shout fire in
> a crowded theatre.
> >
> > It most certainly does! There is absolutely nothing to
> prevent one from
> > shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.
>
> Actually, it doesn't. When I was on-staff at the computer
> center at Dartmouth,
> our provost also happened to be a first-amendment scholar,
> and he gave us an impromptu
> speech about the first amendment at a staff meeting :-)
>
> The US Supreme Court recognizes a couple exceptions to the
> broad permission to
> speak freely:
>
> - Shouting fire in a crowded theater is explicitly prohibited
> because of the obvious
> danger and risk of injury.
>
> - "Fighting words", that by their very utterance inflict
> injury or tend to incite
> an immediate breach of the peace". [Wikipedia] The example he
> gave was this: someone
> standing on a soapbox in Hanover NH, saying that we should
> storm the gates in
> Washington and burn the place down is just exercising their
> free speech rights
> - there's no credible *imminent* threat. However, standing
> there and saying that
> we should burn down the Town Hall could clearly be believed
> to be a real threat,
> and the government would be justified in stepping in.
>
> Rich Brown richard.e.brown@dartware.com
> Dartware, LLC http://www.dartware.com
> 66-7 Benning Street Telephone: 603-643-9600
> West Lebanon, NH 03784-3407 Fax: 603-643-2289
>
>
