12 Mar
2006
12 Mar
'06
1:11 p.m.
Yes, and one such absolute value is "free
speech".
Lee
Tell that to David Irving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
I just want to clarify two things and then I'll
stop these annoying posts.
They're not annoying.
In a community centered around other ideals of freedom, free speech is just
as relevant imo.
And it's obvious that I must respect this freedom
even when somebody
says something that I disagree with.
I'm still undecided if is right or wrong to ban offensive language by
somebody who is trying to build a community of likeminded people.
If you invite me at your home, and I start insulting you and your family
with racist and sexist words I don't thing you would invite me again. In
the same way anybody can start his/her own web community and apply the
rules he/she want.
I agree with you completely Cesare - this is precisely the point I wanted
to make.
I live in the U.S. - where *supposedly* free speech is held in the highest
regard and legally protected.
Nevertheless, if someone comes into my home spewing racist bile, I will
punch them in the face, throw them out, and they will not be allowed back
in.
I have a right to maintain a space of my own - my domicile - where I do not
have to listen to that, or have my children listen to that.
On the other hand, if you were hauled off to jail for voicing unpopular
views in public, I would vigorously speak in your defense, however
offensive I might find those views personally.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.)
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.
Don't leave :)
- Maluvia
12 Mar
12 Mar
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.
4:59 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:42 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic
compounds that
others
would be forced to breathe.
So does car exhaust but no one seems to care about that. The hospital
down the street has "Clean Air Zone" signs all over it stating that it's
verboten to smoke anywhere on the premises. But people can and do sit
with their engine idling 10 feet from the door to the ER for hours.
(sorry this is one of my pet peeves - I am not pro-secondhand smoke but
anti-hypocrisy)
Lee
5:15 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:59 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:42 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
I'm not a hypocrite. I *have* to drive so I can go to work. I'd
say a good 85% of people have to drive if they work outside the home.
No one has to smoke, period. Trust me, I know. I used to smoke two
packs a day (27 years ago). Now, if we could just get some clean fuels
we could clear up the exhaust problem but that'll take a while I think.
--
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
Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic
compounds that
others
would be forced to breathe.
So does car exhaust but no one seems to care about that. The hospital
down the street has "Clean Air Zone" signs all over it stating that it's
verboten to smoke anywhere on the premises. But people can and do sit
with their engine idling 10 feet from the door to the ER for hours.
(sorry this is one of my pet peeves - I am not pro-secondhand smoke but
anti-hypocrisy)
5:38 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:11 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:59 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, the hypocrisy is in calling it a
"Clean Air Zone" rather than a "No Smoking Area". The smoking issue
was
a bad example as there's massive hypocrisy and doublespeak on both sides
of that debate.
Lee
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:42 -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
I'm not a hypocrite. I *have* to drive so I can go to work. I'd
say a good 85% of people have to drive if they work outside the home.
No one has to smoke, period. Trust me, I know. I used to smoke two
packs a day (27 years ago). Now, if we could just get some clean fuels
we could clear up the exhaust problem but that'll take a while I think.
Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic
compounds that
others
would be forced to breathe.
So does car exhaust but no one seems to care about that. The hospital
down the street has "Clean Air Zone" signs all over it stating that it's
verboten to smoke anywhere on the premises. But people can and do sit
with their engine idling 10 feet from the door to the ER for hours.
(sorry this is one of my pet peeves - I am not pro-secondhand smoke but
anti-hypocrisy)
13 Mar
13 Mar
3:18 a.m.
Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 15:59 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
Check this out for some positive movements in that direction...
http://www.theaircar.com/
Cheers.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/ - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
Apparently upon the beginning of the barrage, the donkey broke
discipline and panicked, toppling the cart. At that point, the rockets
disconnected from the timer, leaving them strewn around the street.
Tethered to the now toppled cart, the donkey was unable to escape before
the arrival of U.S. troops.
United Press International
Rockets on donkeys hit major Baghdad sites
By P. MITCHELL PROTHERO
Published 11/21/2003 11:13 AM
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:42 -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
I'm not a hypocrite. I *have* to drive so I can go to work. I'd
say a good 85% of people have to drive if they work outside the home.
No one has to smoke, period. Trust me, I know. I used to smoke two
packs a day (27 years ago). Now, if we could just get some clean fuels
we could clear up the exhaust problem but that'll take a while I think.
Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic
compounds that
others
would be forced to breathe.
So does car exhaust but no one seems to care about that. The hospital
down the street has "Clean Air Zone" signs all over it stating that it's
verboten to smoke anywhere on the premises. But people can and do sit
with their engine idling 10 feet from the door to the ER for hours.
(sorry this is one of my pet peeves - I am not pro-secondhand smoke but
anti-hypocrisy)
12 Mar
12 Mar
8:25 p.m.
On Sun Mar 12, 2006 at 03:59:44PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 12:42 -0600, Jan Depner wrote:
> Smoking, on the other hand, produces carcinogenic compounds that
> others
> would be forced to breathe.
and has been demonized so that its not even an optional choice, say at a
bar/club/restaurant that would allow smoking. the war on freedom continues...
(sorry this is one of my pet peeves - I am not
pro-secondhand smoke but
anti-hypocrisy)
4:55 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 09:11 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
Yes, it's unfortunate that he was locked up. Most Americans are
appalled by it. Holocaust deniers are free to make idiots out of
themselves in the US.
Lee
Yes, and one
such absolute value is "free speech".
Lee
Tell that to David Irving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm 
6:19 p.m.
On Sunday 12 March 2006 15:55, Lee Revell wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 09:11 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
Yes, it's unfortunate that he was locked up. Most Americans are
appalled by it. Holocaust deniers are free to make idiots out of
themselves in the US.
And in any other jurisdiction for that matter. The real problem becomes
evident when these people decide to re-write history in their own
warped view and pass it off as fact without a disclaimer that it just
their view. At which point those that did not live through it, and
witness it even if only vicariously as I did at the tender age of 10 or
11, (I still can recall the pictures in the paper of the 'camps' as
they were liberated, showing near naked people who weighed maybe 60
lbs, twasn't "purty" then and sure isn't now 61 years later) and then
become confused because they have no authoritative, guaranteed correct
version of history to reference in order to be fully aware that such
shamuses are to be treated as exactly that. The rantings of a
charlatan or mental defective.
The real problem is when the people who come in contact with this sort
of writing, and because they see a conspiracy under every garbage can
lid they pass, begin to believe it, at which point no further
discussion is going to be fruitfull, rather like argueing with a
diehard PETA member.
So one may as well just shut the hell up and let darwins nature takes
its course, which it appears has occured in this instance. Unforch,
now some jurisdiction is stuck with the bills for humainly feeding,
medicating and houseing this person that I'd describe as somewhat
mentally defective and certainly is not a productive member of the
human race. Worse yet, he will probably be eventually released back
into an unwary society while his ability to contribute to the gene pool
is still intact.
Yes, and
one such absolute value is "free speech".
Lee
Tell that to David Irving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm Lee
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
7:12 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 17:18 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Sunday 12 March 2006 15:55, Lee Revell wrote:
Gene,
The article in question stated that the guy had said in 1989 that he
didn't believe that the Holocaust was actually as bad as portrayed and
that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. He said at the recent
trial that after he had read Eichmann's diary he had reformed his
opinion and now believed that the Holocaust was as portrayed by most
mainstream historians and that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz. He
seems to be one of those people who needs indisputable evidence to buy
into something. At least he is intelligent enough to look at proof and
change his opinion. Of course, they're still putting him in prison for
three years which, in my opinion, is dumb as a door knob.
--
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
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 09:11 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
Yes, it's unfortunate that he was locked up. Most Americans are
appalled by it. Holocaust deniers are free to make idiots out of
themselves in the US.
And in any other jurisdiction for that matter. The real problem becomes
evident when these people decide to re-write history in their own
warped view and pass it off as fact without a disclaimer that it just
their view. At which point those that did not live through it, and
witness it even if only vicariously as I did at the tender age of 10 or
11, (I still can recall the pictures in the paper of the 'camps' as
they were liberated, showing near naked people who weighed maybe 60
lbs, twasn't "purty" then and sure isn't now 61 years later) and then
become confused because they have no authoritative, guaranteed correct
version of history to reference in order to be fully aware that such
shamuses are to be treated as exactly that. The rantings of a
charlatan or mental defective.
The real problem is when the people who come in contact with this sort
of writing, and because they see a conspiracy under every garbage can
lid they pass, begin to believe it, at which point no further
discussion is going to be fruitfull, rather like argueing with a
diehard PETA member.
So one may as well just shut the hell up and let darwins nature takes
its course, which it appears has occured in this instance. Unforch,
now some jurisdiction is stuck with the bills for humainly feeding,
medicating and houseing this person that I'd describe as somewhat
mentally defective and certainly is not a productive member of the
human race. Worse yet, he will probably be eventually released back
into an unwary society while his ability to contribute to the gene pool
is still intact.
Yes, and
one such absolute value is "free speech".
Lee
Tell that to David Irving.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm 
13 Mar
13 Mar
5:20 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] (Well OT now) Re: POLL: Marketing Free Music
Jan Depner wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 17:18 -0500, Gene Heskett
wrote:
>On Sunday 12 March 2006 15:55, Lee Revell wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 09:11 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, and one such absolute value is "free speech".
>>>>
>>>>Lee
>>>
>>>Tell that to David Irving.
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
>>
>>Yes, it's unfortunate that he was locked up. Most Americans are
>>appalled by it. Holocaust deniers are free to make idiots out of
>>themselves in the US.
>>
>
[stuff written by Gene snipped]
Gene,
The article in question stated that the guy had said in 1989 that he
didn't believe that the Holocaust was actually as bad as portrayed and
that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. He said at the recent
trial that after he had read Eichmann's diary he had reformed his
opinion and now believed that the Holocaust was as portrayed by most
mainstream historians and that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.
And then he came out of court and promptly altered his opinion again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4757506.stm
********************
"Given the ruthless efficiency of the Germans, if there was an
extermination programme to kill all the Jews, how come so many
survived?" he said.
When asked whether there was an organised programme to exterminate the
Jews in Europe, overseen by Hitler, Irving told Today: "That is
absolutely wrong and nobody can justify that. "
********************
He
seems to be one of those people who needs indisputable evidence to buy
into something. At least he is intelligent enough to look at proof and
change his opinion.
Really? I don't believe that he's changed his mind at all. His story
changes in court, then it changes again the minute he steps outside. Hmm...
Of course, they're still putting him in prison
for
three years which, in my opinion, is dumb as a door knob.
Well, not everyone believes that "freedom of speech" is more important
than everything else.
He broke the law publicly. What do you expect them to do?
Regards,
Michael
7:43 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] (Well OT now) Re: POLL: Marketing Free Music
On Mon, 2006-03-13 at 09:23 +0000, Michael T D Nelson wrote:
In any free country freedom of speech is probably *the* most
important right. We're losing it here. Apparently it's already lost in
Austria and 11 other European countries.
Jan Depner wrote:
You didn't read the article very well. He is being jailed for
denying the Holocaust. That's what the (IMO stupid) law is about. He
now says that he believes the Holocaust happened. What he said is that
no one so far can prove that Hitler was the instigator. Personally I
think he's a nut job but the charge is denying the Holocaust, the law is
denying the Holocaust, all he's saying now is that he doesn't think
Hitler was the main mover and shaker behind it. That, as far as I can
tell, is not against the law. It's also not against the law to question
the number of people killed since no one has any real solid figures
since they didn't keep really good records (that weren't destroyed).
On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 17:18 -0500, Gene Heskett
wrote:
>On Sunday 12 March 2006 15:55, Lee Revell wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 09:11 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
>>
>>>>Yes, and one such absolute value is "free speech".
>>>>
>>>>Lee
>>>
>>>Tell that to David Irving.
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm
>>
>>Yes, it's unfortunate that he was locked up. Most Americans are
>>appalled by it. Holocaust deniers are free to make idiots out of
>>themselves in the US.
>>
>
[stuff written by Gene snipped]
Gene,
The article in question stated that the guy had said in 1989 that he
didn't believe that the Holocaust was actually as bad as portrayed and
that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. He said at the recent
trial that after he had read Eichmann's diary he had reformed his
opinion and now believed that the Holocaust was as portrayed by most
mainstream historians and that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz.
And then he came out of court and promptly altered his opinion again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4757506.stm
********************
"Given the ruthless efficiency of the Germans, if there was an
extermination programme to kill all the Jews, how come so many
survived?" he said.
When asked whether there was an organised programme to exterminate the
Jews in Europe, overseen by Hitler, Irving told Today: "That is
absolutely wrong and nobody can justify that. "
********************
He
seems to be one of those people who needs indisputable evidence to buy
into something. At least he is intelligent enough to look at proof and
change his opinion.
Really? I don't believe that he's changed his mind at all. His story
changes in court, then it changes again the minute he steps outside. Hmm...
Of course,
they're still putting him in prison for
three years which, in my opinion, is dumb as a door knob.
Well, not everyone believes that "freedom of speech" is more important
than everything else.
He broke the law publicly. What do you expect them to
do?
Fix the stupid law. Did you note the last comment on the whole
thing? By putting this moron in jail they're bringing attention to his
views. If they'd left him in his own fantasy world no one would have
paid attention to him except for the already deluded. This reminds me
of McDonalds suing the owners of the web sites that were saying they put
ground up worms in their hamburgers. Until McDonalds sued them most
people had never heard of this stupid claim. After they sued we all got
to hear about it.
--
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
12 Mar
12 Mar
8:30 p.m.
Yes, it's
unfortunate that he was locked up. Most Americans are
appalled by it. Holocaust deniers are free to make idiots out of
themselves in the US.
And in any other jurisdiction for that matter. The real
problem becomes
evident when these people decide to re-write history in their own
warped view and pass it off as fact without a disclaimer that it just
their view. no authoritative, guaranteed correct version of
history
theres one thing we can agree on...
13 Mar
13 Mar
9:21 a.m.
You know they have Off-Broadway for edgy/less-commercial/cheaper
shows, and Off-off even less commercial ones? I think these "Marketing
free music" topics could be labelled "Off-off-topic" by now...
Gene Heskett wrote:
shamuses are to be treated as exactly that. The
rantings of a
charlatan or mental defective.
Oh my goodness, what do you mean here by "shamus"?! "Shamus" is an
anglicization of the Irish name Seamus (cognate with Scots-Gaelic
Hamish), which is the Irish version of the biblical "James".
I had to mention this because it's Irish language week here, and because:
James
6778
days inactive
6779
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
13 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
cdr -
Gene Heskett -
James McDermott -
Jan Depner -
Lee Revell -
Maluvia -
Michael T D Nelson -
Patrick Shirkey