Found on a website hosted in US by a US service provider:
This is from the inverview with the spokesman of well-known terrorist
Shamil Basaev, known for personally taking hostage hundreds of patients in
a hospital, among other things (the spokesman is Movladi Udugov, the guy
who threatened to drop an airplane on Kremlin).
There is nothing wrong in criticizing the united states. Nor is there harm
in different opinions. The response to propaganda by someone else isn't to
try to censor that propaganda, but to make people aware of dissenting
opinions.
Sure, these guys sound like nuts, but we have free speech in our country.
Hosted by XO Communications - do not bother them, i already alerted their
staff.
As have I. they should not take the site down, they should not treat it
special in any way. We have free speech in this country.
Besides, I found the link interesting, just seeing how rebels view whats
going on... Each seems to be blaming their own enemies as possibly causing
WTC. So far, I've heard Israel and Russia blamed!
Its also scary just how little information there is, the misunderstandings
and propaganda elsewhere. People celebrating, without knowing what WTC
actually was. Or believing that we're living in fear, when we're furious.
Or believing that there is some oncoming war against muslims, not
realizing that we have millions of muslims in our country, just as furious
as everyone else. Funky URL. Keep 'em coming.
Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this
propaganda? Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for
that site.
I may not agree with what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
--- Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
That is the strength of america. The fact that we allow and even encourage
other, even critical, viewpoints to exist.
Communication and contrary viewpoints are the key. Communication so that a
population knows the atrocities committed by their own members. Make these
guys revolted by the terrorists in their own ranks and hopefully they will
help us suppress them.
Scott
BTW, I'm an american and feel no affiliation whatsoever to any aggrieved
ethnicity or religion in the world. I am furious now, but for good reason.
I think they're all nuts.
PS. Please let us not forget:
First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
-- Pastor Martin Niemller
with:
s/jews/terrorists/
s/communist/muslim/
s/trade unionist/dissentor/
The US is no more immune than anywhere else.
Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this
propaganda?
Maybe becuase they believe that censorship of opposing opinions is BAD?
Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for
that site.
And do what exactly? They have every right to speak, even if you don't
happen to like the message.
Hmmm 
Now, are those the same people who set up firewalls? It's
restricing free speech of crackers, you know? Where's your williness to
give them "every right to speak"?
You're a hypocrite.
Now, when did slander become a protected speech?
Learn laws of your own country _before_ you try to teach the rest of the
world how to live by them. The right to speak freely assumes the
necessity to bear responsibility for what you said. In that particular
case there's an unambiguous attempt to incite a major international
conflict by misplacing blame for the heinous crime. This is a dangerous
form of slander, souring relationships of two large nations; not just
innocent ravings of a deranged.
Now, let me tell you how it looks like from Russia: US is asking for help
in dealing with terrorists, but does not want to curtail it's own support
for terrorists waging a full-blown war on Russia. This is the message
millons of people there get by the very fact of that site's existance.
Does anyone have questions on why Russia's support for the proposed
anti-terrorist strikes by NATO is lukewarm?
--vadim
PS BTW, if you do not understand yet, those guys are not kittens,
they are confirmed terrorists. And I'm putting my life to risk
for daring to raise the question of getting their propaganda
mouthpiece down.
>
> And do what exactly? They have every right to speak, even if you don't
> happen to like the message.
HmmmNow, are those the same people who set up firewalls?
Firewalls??? I must have missed an installment
It's
restricing free speech of crackers, you know? Where's your williness to
give them "every right to speak"?
I'm honestly not certain, but I _think_ you are making the "argument" that
if I have a firewall in place, that I am engaging in the hypocritical act
of _censorship based on content_?
You're a hypocrite.
If the above argument _is_ how you reached this, then you're nutz.
Now, when did slander become a protected speech?
Now I _am_ certain I missed an installment... *What* slander?
Learn laws of your own country _before_ you try to teach the rest of the
world how to live by them. The right to speak freely assumes the
necessity to bear responsibility for what you said. In that particular
case there's an unambiguous attempt to incite a major international
conflict by misplacing blame for the heinous crime. This is a dangerous
form of slander, souring relationships of two large nations; not just
innocent ravings of a deranged.
In all earnest, do you have first-hand knowledge that the aforementioned
speech is slanderous (i.e., untrue and made with malice)?
We allow LOTS of accuracy-questionable speech here - my argument is that
attempting to pull things down because you dislike the content is
ethically *wrong*, and possibly illegal (here, in the U.S., YMMV).
Now, let me tell you how it looks like from Russia: US is asking for help
in dealing with terrorists, but does not want to curtail it's own support
for terrorists waging a full-blown war on Russia. This is the message
millons of people there get by the very fact of that site's existance.
A point I have made repeatedly. I think you are missing the crux of my
argument - I do not wish to see _content based_ censorship, regardless of
whether the censoree is pro Amerikkka, pro Israeli, pro Palestinian, anti
Arab, pro Martian, whatever.
Does anyone have questions on why Russia's support for the proposed
anti-terrorist strikes by NATO is lukewarm?
None. What I *am* surprised at is that so many countries have signed on
for Shrub's new campaign of terror and destruction.
--vadim
PS BTW, if you do not understand yet, those guys are not kittens,
they are confirmed terrorists. And I'm putting my life to risk
for daring to raise the question of getting their propaganda
mouthpiece down.
Understood, nevertheless, I believe your energies would be better served
refuting their claims, rather than trying to censor their message.
Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
> And do what exactly? They have every right to speak, even if you don't
> happen to like the message.Hmmm
restricing free speech of crackers, you know? Where's your williness to
give them "every right to speak"?You're a hypocrite.
WOAH. Wait a minute, Vadim.
Just because you (or anyone else) may have a right to free speech in your
particular jurisdiction and circumstances doesn't mean you have a right to be
received in my (or anybody else's, for that matter) ear canal or understood in
my heap of synapses. Or that you have free access to airwaves etc etc.
[..]
Now, let me tell you how it looks like from Russia: US is asking for help
in dealing with terrorists, but does not want to curtail it's own support
for terrorists waging a full-blown war on Russia. This is the message
millons of people there get by the very fact of that site's existance.
Hmm.
You know, you do have the right to ignore 'free speech' and proceed as if
nothing happened. No matter what the 'container' of 'free speech' had inside.
The application of slander in a free speech context is a quite problematic
area. Again, this really belongs into a U.S. constitution discussion rather
than here.
Does anyone have questions on why Russia's support for the proposed
anti-terrorist strikes by NATO is lukewarm?
There are obviously a myriad of reasons, not the least the rather complicated
relationship between Russia and NATO.
I think that we would be all better off if Russia, the countries represented
through NATO and the rest of the world unite in a common goal.
Personally, while I'm outraged at these incidents, do believe supposedly
peaceful smoothtalking isn't going to make any difference in this matter, I am
very troubled by the invocation of article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. It
sets a very dangerous precedent. I think NATO is an antique and needs to
change with the times, but that's a seperate discussion.
I think a response by force is needed. I don't believe anything but a
sustained campaign by many means is going to be effective. I think that
'effective surgical strikes' is an oxymoron and that this world (the U.S.
included) needs to accept that dealing with this problem will incur
significant losses if we hope to make any difference whatsoever.
Cheers,
Chris
measl@mfn.org wrote:
[..]
> Does anyone have questions on why Russia's support for the proposed
> anti-terrorist strikes by NATO is lukewarm?None. What I *am* surprised at is that so many countries have signed on
for Shrub's new campaign of terror and destruction.
You may want to check the international press for a reality check. The
outrage is most certainly shared, the sign off on a participation and the
extent of which in "Shrub's new campaign of terror and destruction" is by no
means a done deal at this point. If you need pointers, I'll be happy to
provide them.
Cheers,
Chris
Yes, you do. The whole point of firewalls is not to let the specifically
defined content in. I can just as well have an argument that an attempt
to break into your system is a valid form of expression (and, in fact,
that argument was made in courts).
The fact, that this kind of message can be in many cases detected and
prevented automatically does not change the point that you are restricting
free speech (i.e. unlimited exchange of information) to some other
parties.
Absolute free speech is an oxymoron. And so is claiming that hosting a
terrorist website is legal in US or protected by First Amendment.
--vadim
Vadim Antonov wrote:
[..]
Yes, you do. The whole point of firewalls is not to let the specifically
defined content in. I can just as well have an argument that an attempt
to break into your system is a valid form of expression (and, in fact,
that argument was made in courts).
Sure you can have that argument, but whether it is likely to succeed is a
completely different question. Not to mention the other problems such an
argument would face, one needs to consider that there are certain requirements
speech has to meet to afford constitutional protection as free speech.
> > It's
> > restricing free speech of crackers, you know? Where's your
> > williness to
> > give them "every right to speak"?
> I'm honestly not certain, but I _think_ you are making the
> "argument" that
> if I have a firewall in place, that I am engaging in the
> hypocritical act
> of _censorship based on content_?
Yes, you do. The whole point of firewalls is not to let the specifically
defined content in. I can just as well have an argument that an attempt
to break into your system is a valid form of expression (and, in fact,
that argument was made in courts).
Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to listen. If people could
demand that I listen to them in the name of free speech, there's no way that
I could allow them to have free speech.
The fact, that this kind of message can be in many cases detected and
prevented automatically does not change the point that you are restricting
free speech (i.e. unlimited exchange of information) to some other
parties.
I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means. Freedom of speech
means the right to express those ideas you wish using that which is yours to
use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Absolute free speech is an oxymoron. And so is claiming that hosting a
terrorist website is legal in US or protected by First Amendment.
No, absolulte free speech means that absolute right to use what is yours to
use without discrimination from the government based upon the content of
your speech. Private citizens, on the other hand, need not listen if they
don't want to -- that's part of freedom of expression too.
If an instrusion attempt is speech, it's like shouting in someone's ears.
The discrimination is not based upon content -- I would have on complaint if
they published the intrustion in the New York Times rather than using it
against *my* computers. Your freedom of speech ends it my ears.
DS
Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do
with you or me and what we tell each other. Actually Freedom of Speech
means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with
U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> I think you misunderstand what free speech is and means.
> Freedom of speech
> means the right to express those ideas you wish using that
> which is yours to
> use. It does not include the right to commandeer other people's presses.
Common misconception that Freedom of Speech has anything to do
with you or me and what we tell each other.
Of course it does!!!
Actually Freedom of Speech
means freedom from governement censorship, and has nothing do with with
U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications.
What are you talking about? What would government censorship be other than
an attempt to control or limit U.S. Citizen to Citizen communications?! If
you have some definition of 'censorship' other than attempting to limit or
control what people can say to each other, I'd love to hear it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In other words, individuals are guaranteed the right to use what is theirs
to express those ideas they wish, which is exactly what I said.
(If you were agreeing with me, ignore this. But it sounds like you are
disagreeing with me.)
DS
> > It's
> > restricing free speech of crackers, you know? Where's your williness to
> > give them "every right to speak"?
>
> I'm honestly not certain, but I _think_ you are making the "argument" that
> if I have a firewall in place, that I am engaging in the hypocritical act
> of _censorship based on content_?Yes, you do. The whole point of firewalls is not to let the specifically
defined content in.
I would argue that this is incorrect, protocols are not "content",
however, I need not reach this, as the remainder of your position is
fatally flawed.
I can just as well have an argument that an attempt
to break into your system is a valid form of expression (and, in fact,
that argument was made in courts).
Free expression does not include the right to force others to act as your
messenger (as would be the case in the above example).
The fact, that this kind of message can be in many cases detected and
prevented automatically does not change the point that you are restricting
free speech (i.e. unlimited exchange of information) to some other
parties.
Free expression does not necessarily imply the free *exchange* of
information, rather it implies the right to *disseminate*
information. Whether or not a dialog ensues is totally dependent on
whether anyone desires to *listen*.
Absolute free speech is an oxymoron. And so is claiming that hosting a
terrorist website is legal in US or protected by First Amendment.
The hosting of a terrorist website is a contractual agreement between the
hosting provider and the purchaser of connectivity services to allow the
purchaser to use the [ISP's] facilities to *disseminate* information. You
are *not* being required to *listen*.
Your argument is specious and disappointing - especially since you are
more often than not a reasonable, and logical, person.
I believe we were talking about the custom/concept of free speech as
[supposedly practiced in the U.S.] opposed to the Constitutional "Free
Speech".
Sorry, I didn't realize there was a difference. Basically my point is that
if I restrict what you say, its not a violation of Freedom of Speech, only
if the Government restricts speech.
Btw, I would only try to restrict speech if it was directed towards me and
not welcome.
andy
> I believe we were talking about the custom/concept of free speech as
> [supposedly practiced in the U.S.] opposed to the Constitutional "Free
> Speech".Sorry, I didn't realize there was a difference. Basically my point is that
if I restrict what you say, its not a violation of Freedom of Speech, only
if the Government restricts speech.
Actually, if I understand it correctly (and of course, IANAL-larvae), this
is not *always* true in the U.S., although this would hold for the vast
majority of private causes.
Btw, I would only try to restrict speech if it was directed towards me and
not welcome.
Personally, I have no problem with anyone saying *anything* (of course we
are assuming here that it is said in "good faith", regardless of how
tasteless, wrongheaded, or just flat out wrong it may in fact be),
provided they are using their own press/website/whatever to say it. While
I realize that it may cause the firestorm, I hold that SPAM is will
usually qualify as OK by this definition. Hey, I have a delete key for
those I don't want to listen to...