[IRP] [Expression] good practice to define limits of freedom of expression
by MaxSenges | Mon, 12/07/2009 - 12:09
Dear Milton, and all
your position on freedom of expression is well documented and I can tell you believe it is the only correct one.
Hence I am sorry to say that I dont have the time to discuss with you especially when you start the exchange with this agressive (not to say insulting) tone.
My intention is to find intercultural consensus and deliberate about a practical institutional ecology to address FoE issues on the internet. Stating that there should be no limits to FoE is a contribution, but wont help us find a solution besides the radical solution of no mediating bodies.
my2cent
Max
"The future is here. It’s just not widely distributed yet."
—William Gibson
...........................................................................
Max Senges
Berlin
www.maxsenges.com
Mobile: 01622122755
your position on freedom of expression is well documented and I can tell you believe it is the only correct one.
Hence I am sorry to say that I dont have the time to discuss with you especially when you start the exchange with this agressive (not to say insulting) tone.
My intention is to find intercultural consensus and deliberate about a practical institutional ecology to address FoE issues on the internet. Stating that there should be no limits to FoE is a contribution, but wont help us find a solution besides the radical solution of no mediating bodies.
my2cent
Max
"The future is here. It’s just not widely distributed yet."
—William Gibson
...........................................................................
Max Senges
Berlin
www.maxsenges.com
Mobile: 01622122755
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
From: expression-bounces@ipjustice.org [mailto:expression-bounces@ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Max SengesDo you know about other good practices? Would it make sense to have a body like the BPjM on a global level?Do you consider censorship to be "good practice?" When you ask whether it would "make sense to have a body like the BPjM on a global basis" are you joking, or have you abandoned your commitment to free expression? I cannot imagine a more repressive, dangerous approach and am frankly shocked to see this advocated here.The fallacy here is one of prior restraint, which is always inimical to free expression. If organizations or political parties break the law then you punish them after they have done it; you don't (if you support freedom of expression) categorically ban them and muzzle everything they say or do before it can be adjudged legal or illegal.
