Persuant to my post about the Canadian DMCA it appears that the legislation has been pulled and will not be enacted in its current form.

It’s hard to say why without the power of telepathy, but I would imagine that the widespread public outcry over the effects of the law can’t have hurt.

Sorry, the bill has been delayed, not withdrawn

Which is more free?

1. that which ensures freedom or
2. that which grants so much freedom that it permits denial of freedom

I know my perspective on this one, but I’m interested in hearing yours, before I weigh in myself.

Discuss.

So, well, here’s a very well-spoken law professor’s take on it, by way of 30 days of DRM

Yes, it’s going to be one of those posts.

There’s a couple of interesting incidents out in the wilds (I hesitate to say “hinterlands”, but mainly because I don’t think that way of Austria, and I don’t want to lump them in with the rest of the places at issue) of the world. You may have heard of them. There’s the (by now) infamous incident with the Danish editorial cartoons causing riots and bloodshed… Oh, sorry, no. Just to be clear, that bloodshed? Those riots? The threats? Those are the works of madmen, not cartoonists. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to differentiate the two.

Anyway… Back on track… There’s the cartoons, and then there’s this twit over in Austria, deliberately flouting their laws against Holocaust denial to promulgate bald-faced lies about the occurrence of the Nazi extermination of some large number of Jews.

So… What’s the most common refrain? Well, on one hand we have people who are all for freedom of speech, and then on the other hand we have people who are all for freedom of speech.

What the fuck, you ask?

Well, see, that last group “believe in free speech, but…”

Beware of anyone who prefaces a statement with that line. They probably don’t have your best interests at heart, and they’re a liar, to boot.

Here’s the skinny, and I know that this comes as no news to most of those that read here, but nonetheless: Free Speech means (and, in fact, rests firmly upon and is rendered meaningless without) the right to say things that terrify, disgust, demean, insult, and verbally violate all that you hold dear. The more offensive an utterance is, the more important it is that the speaker be free to say it, without fear of violence or of censorship. That isn’t to say that they should be immune to censure — that’s how mind-blowingly stupid pronouncements like “Auschwitz’s Crematorium Two, the site of half a million deaths, is ‘a mere legend’” should be greeted. Ridicule is another good response. As is simply ignoring the speaker. But silencing your critics is… well, there’s a couple of interesting 20^th century events that might be informative on the subject. I leave that, too, as an exercise for the reader.

In short, freedom of speech is not just freedom to agree with the people who have more guns.

Beware of people claiming this, as it is often followed by a statement supporting the restriction of those rights. This time is no different.

I believe in the rights of the individual.

But I am starting to wonder about the domains in which those rights are exercised. Is it supportive of individual rights to permit corporate entities the same rights as actual people?

This comes about from reading a book on privacy issues — Database Nation — which enumerates a lot of abuses of the increasingly-connected and documented world we have created for ourselves. Now, I know I’m not the first person to read a book like that and say “Oh noes! How can I hide my porn habit now?!” but I do see some truth in his statements about how the right to privacy might be protected.

The problem is, I don’t necessarily accept that there is a right to privacy, per se.

Anyway, assuming that there is, I’m not sure who is less qualified to protect it — private industry, where they can make money for selling and abusing the information that they are supposed to protect, or government, repository of all things personal, with a vested interest (lately, especially) in making sure that we all conform to standards of behaviour that may or may not be driven by religions that we don’t all share.

It’s ucky.

Anyway, Char complained about a lack of posting, so I figured I’d polish off this draft. So there.

A free speech advocacy group in the USA hands out these Jefferson Muzzle awards to organizations and individuals who have failed to grasp the first ammendment protections of free speech over the course of the year. A good read, and a set of good examples to use if discussing free speech and its abuses.

(Not found via Mefi, but certainly discussed there)

Now, of course, in any instance where one person is mistreated by another, there are the usual three sides to the story. Obviously, we’re not really going to see either of the other two, here. That being said… What the fsck is going on down south? Bear in mind, i am one of the least anti-american people i know - i love the system that they supposedly have there, and generally approve of the nature of their government. But this… this is scary. Has it really reached such a pass that a person can’t express displeasure over his treatment at the hands of security? What ever happened to the freedoms that used to be treated as givens by the american (and, make note, i refer - as in all cases - to both USians and Canadians with this moniker) people?

I generally try to follow political and cultural news with at least a bit of interest. The direction that our country and our neighbouring nations take is of great significance to me, because, even if i don’t agree with them, as a resident i am obliged to live by the laws that my government enacts. Much like the author of this piece, i have observed a divide growing between the government and the people, as the general public is removed more and more from both the workings of government - by secret ballots, stifled debate, and under-the-table dealings - and from the enactment of laws - through judicial activism, vetoes by an unelected senate, and quiet ramming-through of undebated legislation. The only saving grace of the democratic mode of government, as i see it, is that it allows an informed populace to have control over the direction of their country. When you take that away, you no longer have a democratic country, you have an oligarchy at best, a dictatorship at worst.

Sure, you could look at the world and think that i’m being reactionary. I don’t think so, however. I’m not a fervent student of history, but i do think that there is a certain tendency towards slippery slopes when it comes to eroding liberty. I know of at least one example of an elected government that steadily eroded its citizens’ rights in the name of national progress and security, and while i don’t think that our nation could ever come to as evil a pass as that place did, i do feel that - if the erosion of our rights to information, free speech, association, and liberty don’t stop - we will look back on the times that came before - the 80’s and 90’s - as a golden age of human liberty. I don’t want to live in a time when i can’t express my displeasure with the state save for at state-sanctioned times and places. What kind of freedom is that?