Netizens-Digest Wednesday, March 26 2003 Volume 01 : Number 442 Netizens Association Discussion List Digest In this issue: Re[3]: [netz] Free speech (was NETIZENS...) Re[3]: [netz] Free speech (was NETIZENS...) [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Re: [netz] Many voices online and off ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 01:42:51 +0100 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re[3]: [netz] Free speech (was NETIZENS...) HCB> 1. Server physically in Germany and operated by a German citizen. Nazi propaganda is forbidden in Germany, so server hosting provider would be required to shut it down. HCB> 2. Server physically in Korea and operated by a French citizen resident HCB> in France. If French law forbids to operate Nazi website, then this French could be find guilty under French law. Otherwise French government/courts can't don anything about content in Korea. HCB> 3. Server in the US and operated by a German citizen in the UK. No problem here, is there any? HCB> 4. Not a specific dedicated server, but materials questionable by French HCB> law available on Yahoo, and the French goverment demanding either HCB> Yahoo make it unavailable in France or take it off completely. There HCB> is, incidentally, no technically reliable way to know the physical HCB> location of a web client. This could be problem for French government, but since Yahoo is not registered in France (or is it?) it is not supposed to do anything. The other thing is that physical location of client is really unknown - - it could be easily changed via proxy or anonymizer... dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- win sux, use mr. red hat :-) -* ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:05:00 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re[3]: [netz] Free speech (was NETIZENS...) >HCB> 1. Server physically in Germany and operated by a German citizen. >Nazi propaganda is forbidden in Germany, so server hosting provider >would be required to shut it down. > >HCB> 2. Server physically in Korea and operated by a French >citizen resident >HCB> in France. >If French law forbids to operate Nazi website, then this French could >be find guilty under French law. Otherwise French government/courts >can't don anything about content in Korea. > >HCB> 3. Server in the US and operated by a German citizen in the UK. >No problem here, is there any? Very much so to the French (a real example) if it lets Nazi propaganda into France. > >HCB> 4. Not a specific dedicated server, but materials >questionable by French >HCB> law available on Yahoo, and the French goverment demanding either >HCB> Yahoo make it unavailable in France or take it off >completely. There >HCB> is, incidentally, no technically reliable way to know the physical >HCB> location of a web client. >This could be problem for French government, but since Yahoo is not >registered in France (or is it?) it is not supposed to do anything. >The other thing is that physical location of client is really unknown >- it could be easily changed via proxy or anonymizer... My point in posting these things is that there can be significant problems of content control that cannot be affected by national governments. Now, again only using the demonstrations about CNN as an example, how would demonstrators in any of these countries have any real effect? Question for Netizens: is there a particular role for "protest" with respect to Internet (and other media content), or does it come back to what I'll very loosely say a consumer/provider model where Larry has made some comments? At this point, I'm hoping even to frame a meaningful set of questions. I'm not yet to the point of having answers. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 23:54:34 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Hauben Subject: [netz] Many voices online and off Hi, Ronda and I were among the over 250,000 New Yorkers who marched on Saturday against the bombing and invasion of Iraq. The march resembled the Internet. There were 1000's of home made signs voicing a large spectrum of opinion and understanding of the tragedy of this war. I also saw two signs in support of this war. There was not much media coverage but the people saw each other and expressed a kinship with those opposed to the war everywhere. A short article on this march appears on Telepolis with an interesting set of comments in German. Here is the url: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/14450/1.html The article is titled: Giant Protest March in New York City Condemns the U.S. Government Attack on Iraq and begins: "Our grief is not a cry for war", one sign proclaimed. "New York City is not for war", another protester explained. These were but two of the sea of homemade signs and people that filled the streets of New York City on Saturday, March 22, 2003. Protesters stretched at least two miles across Broadway, marching from 42nd Street to Washington Square Park." A longer version of the article if anyone is interested is at: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/march22protest.txt The Internet and connections with people around the world are helping many people in the USA to know they are not alone in the fight against the reactionary policies and practices of the Bush regime. Ronda and I had a sign which said "Communication Not Annihilation, Stop the War Against Iraq, Netizens Unite". It is interesting to us that the Times of India had an editorial with the title "Netizens Unite" which has attracted a large number of comments. The concept of a global net citizenship combined with local citizenship is helpful to me in my effort to understand the significance of the simultaneous global expressions of commitment to stop this war and the other war plans of the Bush regime. It will come as no surprise to those on this list how important the Internet has been to the organization and coordination of such marches and the informing of the marchers. It would make a valuable study to gather the 1000's of slogans at this and other marches and see what the patterns and understandings behind them are. And then search for a correlation with the contents of the main web sites and newsgroups that the protesters participate in. My heart goes out to the Iraqi people and the military personnel and their families whose lives are being shattered by this war. The turnout in NYC lifted my spirit because it gave me an idea of the number of people who will not rest until this unneccessary and unjustifiable war is stopped. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 08:37:54 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off >Hi, > >Ronda and I were among the over 250,000 New Yorkers who marched on >Saturday against the bombing and invasion of Iraq. The march resembled >the Internet. Ummmm...we have rather different perceptions of what constitutes "the Internet." I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but pleading for precision in definition. You will note that I recently posted some background on Internet infrastructure, the prerequisite for anything else that happens on the net. Where are the routers, the DNS servers, the GMPLS switches, in a demonstration? I'd really, really suggest that trying to equate the Internet to traditional demonstrations may be a significant bar to meaningful communication with some people on the list -- I certainly put myself in that category. I have refrained from suggesting that other, generally technically oriented Internet experts join this list until I feel their time will not be wasted wading through materials that has peripheral or no relationship to network-enabled political participation. Every time I see another post detailing a demonstration, I suppress a strong urge to unsubscribe. There are many venues for discussing demonstrations. There are limited venues for discussing interactions between electronic/photonic networks and the political process. The beauty of the Internet is the way that people can get information efficiently by "tuning in" to multiple, specific discussions, rather than wading through unrelated subjects in a vi >There were 1000's of home made signs voicing a large >spectrum of opinion and understanding of the tragedy of this war. I >also saw two signs in support of this war. I'm not trying to be other than a semantic analyst here, but I would be much more comfortable if the comparison were not between "tragedy" and "support." "Tragedy" versus "comedy" would be classic if not particularly useful. "Support" does not exclude "tragedy" -- many people who support military intervention in specific situations regard such intervention as a necessary tragedy. That attitude is most common, in my experience, among professional soldiers. >[snip one-sided references to a position on the war > >The Internet and connections with people around the world are helping >many people in the USA to know they are not alone in the fight against >the reactionary policies and practices of the Bush regime. Sir, I say to you, with respect and recognizing that this may be the first time I have used profanity in a post to this list, bullshit. "Regime" implies that a given government came to power through extra-constitutional (or other national equivalent) means. Gore and Bush campaigned for election inside the system. There were election problems, resolved within the system. Just because you don't like the positions taken by a government doesn't make it a "regime." Under US law, it has full legitimacy. OF COURSE that doesn't mean you have every right to disagree with its decisions, but, until you show me a line in the Constitution showing how "public sentiment", or anything except the electoral and representative process, with judicial review, is the legitimate means of making the policy of the United States: Bullshit. Again. >Ronda and I had >a sign which said "Communication Not Annihilation, Stop the War Against >Iraq, Netizens Unite". It is interesting to us that the Times of India had >an editorial with the title "Netizens Unite" which has attracted a large >number of comments. The concept of a global net citizenship combined with >local citizenship is helpful to me in my effort to understand the >significance of the simultaneous global expressions of commitment to stop >this war and the other war plans of the Bush regime. > >It will come as no surprise to those on this list how important the >Internet has been to the organization and coordination of such marches >and the informing of the marchers. That is a valid and ideology-free point of discussion. > >It would make a valuable study to gather the 1000's of slogans at this and >other marches and see what the patterns and understandings behind them >are. And then search for a correlation with the contents of the main >web sites and newsgroups that the protesters participate in. _that_ would seem a legitimate network-enabled topic. Specific proposals? > >My heart goes out to the Iraqi people and the military personnel and their >families whose lives are being shattered by this war. The turnout in NYC >lifted my spirit because it gave me an idea of the number of people who >will not rest until this unneccessary and unjustifiable war is stopped. I regret the tragedy to all people on all sides. I consider the characterization of any war, on this list, as "unnecessary and unjustifiable" to be an inappropriate and ideological distraction from dealing with issues of network-enabled political participation. > >Take care. > >Jay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 09:59:21 -0500 From: Mark Lindeman Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Howard wrote (in response to Jay), >> The Internet and connections with people around the world are helping >> many people in the USA to know they are not alone in the fight against >> the reactionary policies and practices of the Bush regime. > > > Sir, I say to you, with respect and recognizing that this may be the > first time I have used profanity in a post to this list, bullshit. > "Regime" implies that a given government came to power through > extra-constitutional (or other national equivalent) means. Gore and > Bush campaigned for election inside the system. There were election > problems, resolved within the system. As a political scientist, I can't resist pointing out that (from our standpoint, at least) the word "regime" is not _supposed_ to imply anything about legitimacy. A regime is a form of government, an administration, or a prevailing social system or pattern (paraphrasing the American Heritage Dictionary). As for what Jay intended, my reading is pretty close to Howard's. And, in truth, I am similarly annoyed. It seems to me that Howard has been making a perfectly plausible argument about the appropriate scope of the list, and Jay hasn't offered a clear alternative that I have registered, and yet much of the content of his post simply disregards what Howard has said. At best, it seems like waving a red flag in front of a bull (no disrespect to Howard intended!). It makes me feel that my own efforts to discern and contribute to a common purpose for the list, as well as Howard's and other people's efforts, are futile. Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:28:00 -0500 From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off >Howard wrote (in response to Jay), > >>>The Internet and connections with people around the world are helping >>>many people in the USA to know they are not alone in the fight against >>>the reactionary policies and practices of the Bush regime. >> >> >>Sir, I say to you, with respect and recognizing that this may be >>the first time I have used profanity in a post to this list, >>bullshit. "Regime" implies that a given government came to power >>through extra-constitutional (or other national equivalent) means. >>Gore and Bush campaigned for election inside the system. There >>were election problems, resolved within the system. > >As a political scientist, I can't resist pointing out that (from our >standpoint, at least) the word "regime" is not _supposed_ to imply >anything about legitimacy. A regime is a form of government, an >administration, or a prevailing social system or pattern >(paraphrasing the American Heritage Dictionary). Mea culpa, my bad, and take ten points off the political science exam. Raising my eyes to the heavens, I _hate_ it when perfectly legitimate, precise terms somehow become epithets. I'm afraid that's happened to "regime". There's enough confusion, on an international list, that I try very carefully to avoid the terms "government" and "administration", with their opposite meanings in much of Europe and the US, or perhaps between representative and parliamentary systems. Neither one of these has lost precise meaning, other than you must know the context to know _which_ meaning. People, perhaps, could use a laugh. My house was built in 1948. The original owners put on a badly constructed addition (i.e., sticking newspapers in the wall for insulation) in the early fifties. In 1990, we demolished and rebuilt the extension. Demolition stopped for a couple of hours, however, when the crew picked up some of the newspapers stuffed in the wall and read the headlines. It took us an hour or two to stop laughing hysterically, and then we decided it was time to call it a day and have some beer. You see, the newspaper headline were reporting on Douglas MacArthur's dismissal from the Korean War command and his triumphant return parade in New York. The key headline: "MacA Comes Home. New York gives Gay Welcome" >As for what Jay intended, my reading is pretty close to Howard's. > >And, in truth, I am similarly annoyed. It seems to me that Howard >has been making a perfectly plausible argument about the appropriate >scope of the list, and Jay hasn't offered a clear alternative that I >have registered, and yet much of the content of his post simply >disregards what Howard has said. At best, it seems like waving a >red flag in front of a bull (no disrespect to Howard intended!). Well, given the epithet I chose to use, perhaps the metaphor is not completely misplaced. :-) >It makes me feel that my own efforts to discern and contribute to a >common purpose for the list, as well as Howard's and other people's >efforts, are futile. > >Mark Lindeman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:15:53 +0100 From: Dan Duris Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off JH> My heart goes out to the Iraqi people and the military personnel and their Military personnel is just another group in support of Saddam's dictatorship. By the way, your email seems quite similar to one Ronda sent when she too part in first protest, I guess you had even same banner there... I am not so interested in mass protests anyway. I don't think this list is about Iraq, although it seems so in last few weeks. PS How many people are subscribed to Netizens? dan - -------------------------- email: dusoft@staznosti.sk ICQ: 17932727 *- "ye shall not rob from the house i have built" thief1 -* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 23:47:56 -0500 (EST) From: Jay Hauben Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off Hi, I wrote: > > The march resembled the Internet. Howard responded: > > Ummmm...we have rather different perceptions of what constitutes "the > Internet." I think Howard is maybe correct. My understanding of the Internet is that it is more than the technology. For me the Internet is the users and the technology in a symbiotic like relation producing a system and practice of communication. That communication has for human society 2 important characteristics. It has the potential to be universal and to provide uncensored speech so that all contributions can be made and considered. It is in that sense that I wrote that the march resembled the Internet. The sea of homemade signs was my point of resemblence. And the active participation in an important question for the US society was my connection with netizenship. For me netizenship is both taking responsibilty for the health and spread of the net and for the health of one's society as well. Howard continued > ... There are limited venues for discussing interactions between > electronic/photonic networks and the political process. That maybe true but we may differ over what is meant by "the political process". For me the march was a piece of that process. So seeking the connection of the march to the Internet is worthwhile. And I consider the Internet as I said above a communications network currently electronic/photonic but important because of the communication. Understanding the technology is crucial to helping the Internet to grow and it is valuable to have Howard and others who do on this list. I wrote > > > >It would make a valuable study to gather the 1000's of slogans at this and > >other marches and see what the patterns and understandings behind them > >are. And then search for a correlation with the contents of the main > >web sites and newsgroups that the protesters participate in. > Howard replied > _that_ would seem a legitimate network-enabled topic. Specific proposals? > You might look at: http://www.lib.gcal.ac.uk/researchcollections/antiwar.htm where slogans are being collected. I don't know of anyone who has yet undertaken the correlation work I proposed. I wrote: > > > >My heart goes out to the Iraqi people and the military personnel and their > >families whose lives are being shattered by this war. By "military personnel" I meant British and American fighters. I included the Iraqi military as part of the Iraqi people. So I agreed with Howard or he was agreeing with me when he wrote: > I regret the tragedy to all people on all sides. Perhaps we can agree we are searching to understand and contribute to the Internet and netizenship. Then our differences may be over how might a netizen act in so troubling a time as this appears to be to me. Take care. Jay ------------------------------ End of Netizens-Digest V1 #442 ******************************