This section contains the many frequently debated arguments (with
"Dave Hayes" like answers) over free speech issues. If you find
yourself embroiled in a debate with a control freak, the information
below should help you out. If you find yourself embroiled in a debate 
with me, you might want to save time and read below. 

- Free speech is all well and good, but what is to prevent
  unreasonable users from committing "net-abuse"?

The strawman here is that someone else is defining "net-abuse" 
quite differently than I do above. 

Any label of "net-abuse" is based on an arbitrary standard of conduct
held by a person or group of people (even mine). There is nothing that
says that this standard of conduct is the one true and right standard
of conduct.  People's standards vary.

You, as a free person, have an unalienable right to a choice as to
whether or not to adopt any standard of conduct. This is based on your
ethics, not their morals. Thus, if someone labels you "unreasonable",
that's not your problem...it's theirs.

I'm not saying you should now go out and kill someone. I'm merely 
stressing the importance of ethics, internal codes of conduct which
you will not violate (because -you- wrote them), in determining
whether or not you did something wrong. 

- But there IS a general consensus on what net abuse is! Most news 
  admins have adopted it.

Don't let anyone fool you into believing that there some written
consensus on or standard of net.abuse. There isn't, and if it claims
to be, you can determine the invalidity of such a claim by observing
just how many people argue about it. Without a consensus, it's quite
arbitrary as to what people will claim abuse is.

If someone has written up something, think about whether you agreed to
abide by it or not before the fact when you are called to task on some
violation. It is the root of dishonor to hold someone responsible to a
code of conduct they didn't know about. Not only does this not work,
but it's damn unfair. 

You may get localized consensi who decide to act not unlike the street
gangs in LA or the legal gangs in American Federal Government, armed
with scripts and authority, they attempt to bully people into
submission into their way. This does not mean that there is a
consensus. You can't expect 50,000 or more who come to a consensus on
an issue this complex.

Typically, the label of abuse is used as a wedge to stop someone
from posting something that isn't liked, but this isn't always the
case. Sometimes, people are genuinely trying to help things out. 
Such people should be reminded of the arbitrary nature of their
standards, and of the wide variety of people on the net. 

- We can't allow free speech. What if something extremely damaging is
  posted?

This strawman can easily be debunked by recognizing who is defining
'damage'. See above, as this is the same as saying something is
"net-abuse".

The true test of freedom of expression is when the advocates of True
Free Speech are confronted with expression that they find they would 
like to silence. 

If this test is passed, the expression remains a thorn in their side.
The thorn serves a great purpose as a reminder of the true freedom 
they have.

If this test is failed, the entire philosophy of True Free Speech
soon crumbles, and true freedom of expression becomes a bad thing
in the eyes of the people who tried. "After all, people will abuse
anything if given the chance", they'll say. 

We already have true freedom. We just keep agreeing to give it up.

- But there really are damaging things that can be posted!

You didn't listen above. Let me try another way. Here are some 
commonly dredged up examples of "damaging" information:

* recipes for strong encryption
* pornography and obscenity
* recipes for making chemical, biological, and atomic weapons
* recipes for making counterfeit money

Dr. Dimitri Vulis said it really succinctly:

"Posting such information to Usenet doesn't force anyone to use it to
take some illegal action. And even if publishing such information by
itself violates your local laws, it's up to your local law enforcement
agents to silence you, not the Usenet Cabal."

- There is no cabal. Anyone saying this is obviously a kook. 

Ah, and if there was a "secret society", what better way to hide
it than by denying it and causing those who do not to look foolish?

A "Cabal" of usenet has been identified. This Cabal is defined as:

"Those net citizens, including some usenet administrators, who by their
own consensus reality, set themselves apart from and superior to
usenet users and use this illusory superiority to restrict or censor
any usenet user's attempts at communication through usenet."

The Cabal generally works in concert with each other over their own
private channels of communication. You can tell a Cabal member by the
arrogant holier-than-thou way that they refuse or block your attempts
at communication, regardless of external perceptions of reasonability
about those attempts.

Just to be clear, I have no reason to believe that these people are
acting out of deliberate malice. It's simply a trait of human beings
to abuse positions of power and respect to their own ends. In this
case this trait is damaging the freedom of usenet. 

- If a lot of people complain about someone, there must be something 
  that person is doing wrong. 

Just because a mob comes to your door and demands to lynch someone,
doesn't mean that the someone in question did anything worthy of
being lynched. Usenet has become mob-oriented with several issues,
most notably the famous C&S spamming, demonstrating the new jargon
term "cybermob". 

Mobs are generally ignorant, dense, and single-minded. They have
a tendancy to be generated by emotional issues, with subsequent
loss of sanity for most involved. Do you really want to trust the
judgement of someone else to this phenomena? 

Yes, once you become a sysadmin, the rest of the Usenet community will
expect that you are prepared to discipline your users when they engage 
in whatever they decide to call net-abuse.  Hopefully, by then, you
will have grown past that. 

And what does this discipline really accomplish? Usually, nothing. 

- Someone is defaming me. They should be silenced.

Forget USENET, what if these people were to say the same things
in person, or to other people while you are not present?

Again, Free Speech requires that people have the *ability* to defame
you. Remember that you also have the ability to defend yourself. If
such defamation gets too intense, see your lawyer, and attempt to get
the defamer to agree to stop.

- Free speech means the ability to say what you want.  It does
  not guarantee you _where_ you want to say it and _how_ you
  want to say it.  

This is a definitions strawman. If you can't say something
where and how you want to say it, is your speech truly free?

Would you like some arbitrary person telling you where and
how you can say certain things? I can see it now:

"Sure you have free speech, at 3AM on channel 145 for 2.5 minutes."

Anyone using this argument has no understanding or desire for
free speech, by the very fact that they use this argument. 

Free speech, as defined in this document, guarantees that you can say
anything, anywhere, and anyway you want to.

- USENET operates on certain principles. Create your own net if you
  don't like the way it runs.

This is a political hostage strawman. The arguer is attempting to 
convince you that everyone else likes things the way they are, and
that everyone else is in control of USENET.

If you are running a site, this is patently false. USENET is a collective
anarchy, where site admins have authority over their part of the collective.
You have absolute control over your site to run it any way you want to. 

If you aren't running a site, don't waste your breath arguing with 
these people. Find a Site of Virtue to post from, and support Sites
of Virtue. That way, we -will- create our own net. 

- If you argue for free speech, people aren't going to take you seriously.

This is an emotional hostage strawman. The arguer is attempting to play
on your need to be taken seriously to coerce you into doing things their
way...or they won't take you seriously. 

There are others who won't take you seriously if you cave into these
coercions. Still, others won't take you seriously at all. If we become
affected by everyone's impressions of us, we will certainly be candidates
for an insane asylum. 

I would think that you don't really need to be taken seriously by
anybody who would attempt to coerce you in this way.

-But this is Usenet, a place where speaking is a privilege, not a right.

That all depends on your site admin. If you are at a Site of Virtue,
speaking is a right. 

-Freedom of speech does not mean yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater.

Patently false. Yes, it does mean that. 

Practically, if you hear someone yell "FIRE!" then you have some
decisions to make. Are you going to believe that person or not,
especially when you see nothing? If you do believe this person, are
you going to run for the door like a crazed animal, or quickly make
your way to the exit in a civilized manner?

Whichever you choose, it's -your- choice and -your- responsibility.
It is -not- the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!"
that -you- chose one direction or another. Any other decision 
strips your power away from you.

- It's wrong to force me to read your trash. 

Given that people have to manually select articles from a menu, it's
hard to imagine someone forcing their fingers to press certain keys in
a certain order, so that people are forced to read anything. 

Indeed, the entire concept of force becomes ludicrous when one recognizes
that one can simply close one's eyes and not read anything presented to
them. 

This does bring up a point, however. There -is- a place for
censorship. Your personal newsreaders.

- But who gave you free speech rights on my computer?

YOU did when you loaded the news transport software. According to RFC1036,
making a news server and getting a feed allows the transport of messages
between your news server and another. If you do not specifically filter
messages, those messages are allowed by implication. 

- You can't think like that. Your reputation will suffer.

The value of a set of words is contained within the set of words, NOT
in who said them. It is a common mistake of most human beings to judge
the validity of a set of words mostly upon the reputation of the
messenger. 

- Usenet is free. Internet service isn't.

Oh come on. This is confusing 'free=not under control of some
arbitrary power' and 'free=without cost or payment; gratis'. 

You shouldn't be paying for censored news. If you are, you are
probably wasting your money.
	
5.1) A response to the "Alternative View" of this Alternative View.
     
Consider the following excerpt from this FAQ:

"While all of the people who call themselves 'Freedom Knights' give
lip sevice to free speech, some of the most prolific of them seem to
be more interested in gaining power for themselves.  They have been
known to post things like 'newsadmins are not necessary to the
people's usenet,` which is patently ludicrous because news servers do
not run themselves, or ad-hominem attacks against people who do not
take them seriously, such as accusing UUnet newsadmin David Lawrence
of raping children.
	These so-called Freedom Knights have done more to hurt the
credibility of Dave Hayes and his goals than anything else ever
could."

I find it laughingly ironic that the news admins who are interested
in "gaining power for themselves" can spot this so readily in those
who call themselves Freedom Knights. This is a fine example of a
characteristic nature of humans: that which pisses us off the most
is but a reflection of our own nature. 

Most of these people (including the FAQ writer) cannot read. Here are
some things I think people should know. 

-No one is known as a Freedom Knight by calling themself that. Freedom
Knights are known by their deeds. Some on the Freedom Knights mailing
list have taken to harsh actions. That is their business, and not
mine. They are not only there on the list as an excellent litmus test
for free speech...but most of those people they are referring to have
been so fed up with the fascist-like actions of the news Cabal that 
they are through being nice. 

-Credibility is ultimately a fool's desire. I am rarely willing to put
myself at the mercy of someone else's standard of right and wrong, but
if I was to do so...I can think of no worse group of cliquishly
machevellian people to enslave my actions to than those Cabal members
who are the denziens of news.admin.*.

Some parts © 2009 Advameg, Inc.