12 Mar
2006
12 Mar
'06
2:45 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 09:11 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
There are also people who believe in absolute free
speech rights anywhere
they go, and yet support laws that keep others from smoking in the
workplace or other public places.
Aren't they violating smokers' rights to smoke if they want to - *anywhere*
they want?
The two situations are not analogous. The only way you can
reconcile free speech and the freedom to smoke is if the speech is at a
harmful level, say 120dB. If you speak in a normal tone of voice there
are no deleterious physical effects of your free speech on others.
Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic compounds that others
would be forced to breathe.
Those who disagree would say they have a right to
work/eat in a smoke-free
environment where they do not have to smell the stench of cigarette smoke,
or be subjected to the harmful fumes.
I would agree with them.
This list is another example.
I have often been reminded :) of what is considered OT here, due to the
focus of this list, and I have been prepared from the outset to be shown
the door if and when I cross that invisible line of what is tolerable here.
(Just testing the limits of those boundaries occassionally :) ).
That is perfectly acceptable to me - as a group of people has a right to
come together for a common objective with certain agreed upon guidelines
for acceptable behavior and discussion in order to further the purpose of
their community.
I agree with you, I don't think any of this is OT. It's all related
in some way or another to Linux audio.
How can you uphold the right to free expression and
simultaneously deny
others their right to create environments for themselves where they do not
have to listen to it?
You have misinterpreted the posts on that subject. No one said
anything about denying Jamendo the right to censor others on their site.
Most people here just don't agree with censorship and so will not put
anything up on Jamendo. Given what this list is about I think that's a
perfectly understandable bias ;-)
When the exercise of one person's rights violates
the rights of another,
who is right and who is wrong?
This is where it gets tricky: where are these neutral places where anything
goes without intruding on the rights of others?
Free speech never intrudes on the rights of others unless it incites
people to commit acts that intrude on the rights of others. As Mark
pointed out, yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not acceptable.
Asking people to kill other people in the name of whatever is also not
supported free speech.
Jamendo is not denying anyone their right to freedom of expression in the
world at large, they just don't want certain forms of it in their
particular community.
Anyone is free to start their own music community with as much racist or
sexist filth, and as much pornographic content as they want to (subject of
course to government laws and govt. censorship.)
I think you're probably right on this point too. The list seems
pretty diversified in terms of nationalities. This is a very good thing
IMHO. The more different views we hear the better.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
Otherwise, you should call it 'Linux Audio
American Users' or 'Linux
Audio Land of The Freedom Users'. In this case I would maybe kiss your
ass and leave.
Although the the lingua-franca here is English, I would be very surprised
if there were not more non-Americans here than Americans.
It feels like a pretty global list.