newsbyteblog

Wikileaks wins!

2008-03-05T23:27:00.010+01:00

As many internetjunkies may know by now, there has been a huge battle between free speech and censorship (hey, let me dramatize a bit, will you!?) For more info, see: EFF_ACLU_say_Wikileaks_shutdown_harms_First_Amendment_rights or just google the news with 'wikiweaks'.

As a libertarian who supports almost complete free speech (well, yelling 'fire' is not counted as free speech by me, but I've already discussed those things in the past), I always thought the attack at the main wikileaks domainname was totally unjustified, AND as correctly pointed out by many, the judge included, it didn't prohibit the documents in question from being looked at, since the other domains (especially in Belgium) had a huge succes because of it, creating almost a tenfold of hits of the domain/site. It has backfired on a certain naughty Swiss bank, alright. They got so perturbed, they even sued a person who has no official links to Wikileaks, apart from te fact he was asked to be a facebook moderator. (networkworld)

And now, we received even better news; they've dropped all charges. (Swiss bank in Wikileaks case abruptly abandons lawsuit and Swiss Bank Drops Wikileaks' Lawsuit ).

We win, they loose. Doesn't victory taste as napalm in the morning?

Yes, I know; don't point it out; that (mis)quote is so wrong - in more than one respect... but I still felt like saying it.

Patents vs. The Free World

2007-04-18T15:48:00.000+02:00

Yes, I know it's been a long time since my last entry. I'm just not good at this blog-stuff. I have a theory that most bloggers are at least partially driven by their egos, and, well, maybe mine just isn't big enough. ;-)

Anyway, since even to this day I get some emails in reaction to The software patents manifesto, where I get thanked for providing references and links in regard to the patent-issue, I've been pondering about it. I've decided to build a compendium of links to sites and online researchpapers dealing with (the reform of) patents and copy-right issues. If people know some other interesting links I didn't mention, feel free to point them out in a comment, and I'll place it in the list.

Patent -and Copyright (Reform) List:

http://www2.piratpartiet.se/referenser/the_reform_of_intellectual_property

http://news.trimmail.com/2006/05/25/1148593956_42/

http://www.bralyn.net/etext/literature/bill.gates/challenges-strategy.txt

http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index.en.html

http://www.epip.ruc.dk/Papers/ROSSI_Paper.pdf
http://plone.ffii.org/prmat/parlmag0406/longer

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com

http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

http://www.ffii.org

http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/current/

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140459&cid=11768660

http://www.ffii.org/~jmaebe/epecosci0502/SoftwarePatent.pdf

http://www.epip.ruc.dk/Papers/Hall_MacGarvie_Paper.pdf

http://ukcdr.org/issues/eucd/

http://www.dailyjournal.com/calLawyer/index.cfm?sid=&tkn=&eid=645556&evid=1

http://ueapme.com/EN/index.shtml

http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PatentPlayers

http://books.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/ch5.html#REF41

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

http://www.researchineurope.org/

http://ifso.ie/projects/swpats.html

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/may21/pharma.html

http://righttocreate.blogspot.com/

...

If there are more interesting links not mentionned in the list, feel free to provide the link in a comment.

...

The why of (human) space-exploration

2006-08-15T15:48:00.000+02:00

A frequently occurring debate I have is with the question whether or not we should have space-exploration (and as a subset: human vs. robotic space exploration). This involves the "we should spend the money on other things, like combating worldhunger"-arguments, as the more subtile arguments which is better: human or robotic exploration.

I have pondered a long time about this, and this is my conclusion:

We all heard the reasoning for abolishing space-exploration (particular human-based) before, and I think the major flaw in all these 'arguments' why we shouldn't go into space is that they always set economic factors as a premise.

But, although economic viability is important to create a mass-usage of space(travel), I fail to see why it should be the only possible motive to start exploring space. It's a pretty narrow-minded, materialistic and typical capitalistic view on things. It's the same view that makes progress on medication for very rare diseases, or for diseases that are prevalent in continents that are poor, so slow: corporations can't see how they are ever going to get profit out of it, so they all turn their backs on it.

If ppl (including states) are only going to do something when they are sure of an immediate profitable return, the world has become a sad place. (And we should leave it the sooner ;-)

Arguments based on such a viewpoint fail to recognize other incentives apart from economical ones.

And the reason why we shouldn't (only) rely on robots? You can explore, but you can not colonize with robots. The will to explore is deeply entrenched in the human race, but with a reason: it has survival advantages.

A species that doesn't colonize new territory and adapt, will perish. I think it's paramount that humans always keep their spirit of adventure and keep exploring and expanding, because the moment we will go "ah, let's sit back in our sofa's and let our robots/droids do it", we're basically finished, even when not being aware of it at that moment.

So, to to all the people saying we don't *need* space-exploration (human or otherwise); we don't *need* the pyramids neither, nor all those great buildings and artworks, nor any luxury, etc. The only thing we 'need' is food and shelter. Based on what we truly 'need' thus, we should go back living like cavemen. But of course, we don't, and the reason is that we, as humans, look beyond our immediate needs and have (and should have) grander visions.

So, economics (and also the ratio of costs/science output) is often less good with human space-travel then robotic ones. Contrary to some zealots, I do not dispute that. But, as I have indicated, I do not think one should measure everything in terms of economic benefits. Even if you could send a hundred, or a thousand robots for the price of one human mission, it still would not change the fact that robots can't colonize planets, and augment the survival chances of the human race (and earths' ecology) through interplanetary spreading.

The anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint

2006-07-07T19:50:00.000+02:00

Sometimes, I encounter people (mostly americans, but not always) who have a typical anglo-saxon capitalistic view on the world. "Let the markets decide and everything will be allright!" they claim - conveniently forgetting passed historical lessons, or even logical and rational deduction when one compares different economic systems. Sure, communism failed - but so did ultra-capitalism. And it's the latter that seems to be forgotten all too aften. Thus, the following debate ensured (originally dealing with the EU sanctions against microsoft):

"Sure, by the legal definition MS is bad and needs some good beating, but in the moral sense I clearly disagree. I haven't used MS stuff for quite a while. No problems. Just because so many people whine about how they'd like this or that feature in Windows doesn't give them the right to force it."

That's because your moral premise is completely different; you seem to uphold the premise that a company should be allowed to do whatever it wants - while I (and most of the rest of the world) are of the opinion they are to be hold to restrictions, just like any individual citizen is restricted by laws. Now, it is possible, as I have argued myself, that one should not always follow the law if there are moral objections, thus, when a law is totally incompatible with your own basic ethical value-system.

However, I am left pondering what ethical-value system this might be in the case of a monopolist, and in how far this would be universal.

Corporations only have one overwhelming value-system, and that is making as much profit as possible. This, I would argue, can not constitute an ethical justified objection to a restriction imposed by a law, unless one would argue this value-system trumps every other (ethical) value-system.

Which is, in fact, often claimed within the context of the typical anglo-saxon capitalistic view on the world.

It should be noted, however, that this is not a universally accepted premise, and many find there are other considerations and moral/ethical values, beyond that of profit-gathering. Basic protection of citizens - including in their status of consumers - and stimulating innovation in society are both ethical values, for instance, that can be used, aside profits. Since monopolies, as history demonstrates, are antithetical to both, one is fully justified to make adjustements based on those ethical values or argumentation, instead of yours.

The rest of the debate, which goes further and deeper into matter of economic politics and the ultra-capitalistic (sometimes also referred to as 'libertarian' economic viewpoint; which I do not defend, even when being a civil libertarian myself) can be followed here:

The anglo-saxon capitalistic viewpoint

Enjoy!

Attack of the Food Giants

2006-06-27T21:44:00.002+02:00

Anyone remember Gazing the Future? It was, among others, a rational pondering and analysis about genetically modified food, and how the dangers are minimised, and the benefits exagerated by large corporations - which are basically only interested in their profit margins, NOT in ending worldhunger or to benefit the farmers, as they often claim.

It so happens I stumbled upon a film which exactly handles about this issue, and much to my delight, they are going through of allmost all objections and remarks I made on my blog. It is gratifying to see that logic and rational reasoning, and an objective assessement of such new (bio)technology is possible, and that the conclusions are much the same.

But then again, it would be quite hard *not* to come to similar conclusions, unless one has a vested interest (which includes politicians who are 'legally bribed' by 'lobbyists'). This film is a documentary in the tradition of Michael Moore; it gives facts, AND it shows how people are mislead, and how corporations try to hide their ethical dubious (mal)practice. I would urge anyone interested in these matters to go to the website: www.thefutureoffood.com and see the film.

The Law...and why to say bullocks some times

2006-06-19T19:45:00.000+02:00

Well, been a *long* time since I posted something new here. I suspected as much when I started this blog: I'm just not the person to put every week (let alone every day) an insightful and "deep" post on the blog. Maybe I should go in the direction others have gone: more frequent, but a bit more shallow (will be difficult for me too, I think). I just like going deeper into matters... but anyhow, I'll try it for a while. On slashdot I made a nice post in response to someone making a bold claim:

"We might not like the law, but we still have to obey it."

This remembers me about the book 'Bush: president of good and evil', in which the moral and ethical sense of Bush is analysed, and found it is stuck at the level of a 13-year old. (which, in fact, is not as uncommon as one would believe, for many adults are). The sociological and psychological roots of this behaviour would lead me too far, but I'll simplify by saying that there are several levels of 'ethical priciples' which are quite universal (thus, apparant through all times and cultures).

The ethic behaviour of a teenager between 10-15 years is often very stringent; the law is the law, and rules are rules. He does not yet possess the ability to understand thatrules for the sake of rules are useless, and that exeptions can and should be made on personal evaluation of the rules, not merely because society has put them there. To the surprise of the reseachers, many adults continue to live in that mindset, and never evolve to a more nuanced ethical view in which to look at the world. Your argument above hints at the same kind of mentality.

Thus, let me be clear: no, it's not because something is a law, that we should obey it. And while 'not liking it' is on itself not sufficent case to break a law, it DOES give a first indication and a ground to look closer at that law, and see if it is in harmony with itself (are there internal contradictions?), with other laws (which supercedes which?) and your own basic values (is it acceptable within my own ethical value-system?).

If you do not do that, and merely accept you have to follow a law, because the law is there, then one would sooner or later be confronted with unethical behaviour (even from oneself), even though one is following the law. If a law is passed that would put all niggers apart from white people, would you agree to it? If you're argument is that the law is the law, and you should obey it, then the answer would be yes. If you take the principles I just mentionned, then the answer could well be; no - EVEN if the law says something else. And mind you, a democracy is not immune to such unjust laws; it's just a matter of 'the dictatorship of the majority'.

In my own country, for instance - a most democratic one, more so then the rather doubtful two-party system - there has been talk lately about creating a law which not only criminalyzes immigrants, but also ALL people who help them (for instance, by taking them in their homes, giving them food, etc.). Without wanting to invoke the nazi's, that's rather a disturbing trend. If people offer that help freely, out of empathy, are they being wrong? According to the law (if it gets passed), they are, but I say: bullocks to that law. One should not follow unjust laws, whether they are created by due democratic processes or not.

One could even say that laws, which are generally just, still have to be measured by a persons own value. At least, that's what I do. For instance, I can agree, that stealing is, in general, a 'wrong' thing. When some rich western bloke would steal a television, I would agree with the law: punish him. And yet, if a kid stole food because he was starving, I would not think the same, and would not cooperate with 'the law'. Certainly, these cases are not always easy to spot and to know what is the best thing to do, but it does not absolve you from doing it, and making that personal evaluation.

Following laws just because they have been made is the ultimate stupidity.

EU response on swpat petition

2005-10-06T18:06:00.000+02:00

A few weeks ago, I finally got a response back of the EU Directorate General. A response to what, you ask? Well, for those that are familiar with my interest in (no) swpat, it will be obvious it's to the petition (actually the second one, but the first apparently disappeared) I made to the EU parliament, which was based on the "Software patents manifesto" I made (CC).

My first one was send several months before the actual definitive vote, but got lost. My second did arrive, on 30.03.2005... still on time, but for the slow adminstrative and bureaucratic procedures (something I criticise in the manifest also), which made it too late for having an actual influence on the vote (as a petition, I mean). The main reason being, that it has to go through the committee of petitions, to see if it's allowable. For that, the request must come from a EU citizen (which I am), and must be about subject matter that falls within the scope of the EU parliament (which it did). As a consequence, it got accepted...but by that time the vote was already over. "Fairly lengthy" they call it...indeed!

Well, anyway, the proof is there that at least I tried, which is more than one can say for some anonymous posters who responded to earlier posts on this blog. ;-)

The letters can be viewed here:

Academic research

2005-09-20T00:39:00.000+02:00

Ah, slashdot...you can't live with it, and you can't... ah well. It's great for having discussions, now and then. Sometimes, they even are pretty damn interesting. Anyway, not too long ago, I stumbled upon a /. article about "The Law of Unintended Consequences: Patents" which linked with the relationship between patent law and innovation to the Fortune-article.

Now, I found it to be a pretty interesting read. As did at least some others on /., aparently. But, as always, you have those that are staunch adepts, and those...well, that are not. Pros and cons, as usual - with heated debates, also as usual. I stumbled upon one such discussion, and felt compelled to respond to a guy called 'tambo', whose real name, it would seem, is a certain David Stein. While at first I thought it was a troll, just like the parent posters before me, as the discussion between me and him went on, I was less and less convinced that he was. First of all, it's rare for a troll to place a name on his posts, and secondly, I remember all to well the times *I*'ve been called a troll, merely because I have strong libertarian opinions about diverse issues, and because I'm not afraid to have some criticism where I feel it is necessary (regardless of the popularity of the person or product). Tambo (or Stein) was opinionated, for sure, and what's more, he had a totally different opinion, and in my view, not much of substantiated argumentation. Especially concerning the content of the article, he wasn't very convincing or reasonable, exept for a demand for more hard proof (which is always something that should be welcomed, obviously).

But...he *did* do the trouble of responding in a rather calm way, and some of his theories, while unsubstantiated and no doubt biased, were at least internally logical and contained little contradictions. All by all, he made some good points too, IMHO, despite his unsubstantiated theory and sometimes esotheric conclusions. In any case, it was clear to me he wasn't out to just create a flamewar and to troll people into angry fits: he did too much trouble trying to be coherent for that. So, where I first even doubted he RTFA (as did many others, seen his first comments that seemed to disregard complete pages of the article), I have reverted my opinion. At least, I have the impression he did read the article at some point during the discussion, if it wasn't from the start. ;-)

For people who want to read up on the developing discussion about the pros and cons of academic research verus profit-driven research at universities, and about the validity of what is said in the article, feel free to have a look at this slashdot thread and this one.

And, of course, feel free to comment about your position on this issue.

The EU and the software patent directive

2005-07-12T14:15:00.000+02:00

***

*additional note*

01/08:

It seems the FFII has run in some trouble, very recently, of a legal/financial kind. More can be read at http://www.nutzwerk.de/media/releases/05_07_29_ffii.html (german). Mind that it's an article written by 'the other side', and probably pretty biased. Currently, the servers of the FFII seem to have been cut off, by order of a german court - which seems a bit like an overreaction for a small delay in payment of the fine by Holger (admin of the FFII), who has been overburdened these last weeks, and, admittendly, made a minor mistake in getting the fine payed on time. (Note that this claim of nutzwerk has been doubted by the FFII, who thinks it rather might be a DNS problem). He has offered his resignation, but it is unclear at the moment if it will be accepted. Human errors are understandable, after all, and Holger has, in general, done a great job in fighting against software-patents. One FFII-member commented:

"It seems, the Nutzwerk GmbH is trying already for some time to shut our mouths. And as Holger was over-burdened, a payment to a German court was delayed with ridiculous consequences (believe me - you don't want to live in Germany, I know these problems very well). So in my opinion, it's nothing serious, but the people being directly involved (Holger & Hartmut) are of course very stressed.

IMHO the FFII-core-team needs holidays - at least for me holidays are the only effective cure against burn-outs.

Finally, I want to emphasise that Holger did a really great job the last years. And what has happened was - as far as I understand it - only a minor mistake that could have happened to everyone of us."

10/08 : More on this latest development can be found at http://wiki.ffii.de/NutzwerkDns050729En.

***

As anyone even remotely interested in the subject will know by now, the 'Computer Implemented Invention directive (CIID) was defeated in the EU parliament. This means, basically, that nothing changes in this respect - and that after a battle-of-wills and hard-core lobbying for four years!

The funny thing is, BOTH sides (the pro- and con- lobbyists) consider this as a victory, both claiming it is a good thing it didn't pass through. While this may seem absurd and uncomprehensable, it is, in fact, only the former. Pro-CIID groups, like EICTA, can say little else, after having thrown millions of euro's for lawyers and lobbyists into it. Acknowledging defeat is 'not done'; it's in their general marketing strategy, after all: always portray things as if it were a succes, even if it isn't. So, now they claim 'software inventions remain under the patent protection they already have', which is true, but which amounts, in effect, to having no software patents, seen article 52 EPC of the rules to which the EPO has to hold itself too (but doesn't, leading to the mess we're in now).

The reality is, the directive was thrown out with such a never-seen-before huge majority, because BOTH sides decided to throw it out. The pro-patent MEPS because they were afraid that the amendments proposed by the anti-party (which would bring the CIID in compliance with article 52) could muster enough votes, and the anti-patent group because they weren't sure if they *could* muster enough votes (and even thereafter, if it wouldn't be watered down again by the 'conciliatory' process with the EC). So both sides played it safe, and thus the rejection vote was deemed the second best for both parties. All by all though, one can say this is more a victory for those that are against software patents then for the pro-directive (pro-directive meaning the directive without amandements, obviously). Why? For the simple reason that it were the pro-patent lobbyists that have tried to push this new directive through by all means for the last 4 years, and they failed. If they consider 'no CIID' to be a true succes, they could have saved the trouble and money, and just never initiated and lobbied for the CIID. When, after all those years of political struggling, you fail to get a directive passed you pushed for the past 4 years, it smells like hypocrisy to call the defeat of the CIID a succes by any stretch of the imagination.

As a libertarian (and european citizen at that), I'm also very much AGAINST software patents, and thus the CIID, and I have, in my modest way, campaigned against it too. This campaign could have been much bigger, if I had had a little bit more help from some groups, like the FFII. Because, while I don't want to whine, and I certainly respect the effort they have done to get the CIID thrown away, I must confess I'm rather dissapointed in the reaction I got from the FFII. More then once, I have offered an alliance that would have been mutual beneficial, but to no avail. For instance, I had made a manifesto about the CIID (see below) which I would have like to give to ALL the MEPS (in print, not in email). But seen the fact that that would be more then 700 times 15 pages, this would be too expensive for me alone. So I asked for help, financially or otherwise, to reach that goal. Mind you, I *did* offer my help too; since I don't live all that far away from Brussels, I offered to do their biddings for several days and help them out, as a counter-favour. To no avail, alas.

While they all were pretty enthousiastic in the beginning, things always sizzled out, once they noticed I was talking about mutual beneficial help, but *not* me becomming part of or being directly affiliated with the FFII. An attitude I can't really understand; one would imagine all help is welcome, and if it is mutual beneficial, then what is the problem? If they deemed me helping them out for a copple of days wasn't worth distributing my letters (which were anti-patents after all, and not bad, even if I say so myself), then they could have suggested something else for it. But they didn't. Which annoys me the most, frankly. If they didn't want to help, they should have just said so, and preferably why, or worked womething out we both found was to our (and the cause') benefit. But they didn't. I have send several emails (after their first positive responses), but then they never returned any emails anymore, even when I was open to all suggestions. Maybe they should look into this, in the future, because I don't think it's reasonable to just *not* respond; then even a clear 'no' is better then a wall of silence, IMHO. That said, I'm sure it's mostly a matter of being over-burdened, nothing more, and once they'll get a more adequate management of commuications during peak-moments, I'm confident the FFII will resolve this type of problems, and continue their good work even better then before. In the end, we can consider this outcome a succes for all swpat-opponents, because, when I and a lot of others first began contacting and lobbying MEPs in 2003 for the first reading, things looked pretty bleak.

Anyway, this is the 'manifesto' on the directive I made and send as a petition to the EU parliament (note: this manifesto and the appendixes A & B fall under the Creative Commons, attribution - and thus can be freely used and distributed).

The software patents manifesto

2005-07-11T22:20:00.000+02:00

(Note: for further coverage of this topic, see also this and this)

Manifesto on the directive of “computer implemented inventions”

Dear MEP,

As you are probably well aware, soon the EU parliament will have a 'second reading' of the directive for allowing patents on “computer implemented inventions”, which, as I will show below, actually amount to allowing software patents (swpat), though this is heavily disputed and denied by the proponents of the directive, including the European Commission (EC).

The way in which this directive has gone through the EU Council of ministers is mind boggling and shows exactly how much the EU has a democratic deficit. Despite the fact there was no real majority for the draft any more (the change in vote-weight after the enlargement alone accomplished that, apart from a lot of change of minds of some other countries), despite the fact that stringent motions of national parliaments were passed to oblige the national ministers to redraw the proposal as an A-item so that it may be further discussed, despite the fact that the EU parliament and their JURY-commission asked for a new first (re)reading with almost unanimity, the EC chose to ignore and disregard all this, while giving no explanation, apart from "for institutional reasons as to not create a precedent". In other words, the "common position" had to be followed, even though there was no common position any more, because, apparently, the form is more important then the facts.

This is a stupefying prime example of absurd bureaucratic reasoning and mentality; to give more importance to formality, and to place appearances before the changing facts. Bureaucracy abhors changes, even to the detriment of real democratic values. But then again, maybe this shouldn't surprise us, as the EC is exactly that: bureaucrats, whom were never voted into the position they occupy, yet create laws that could potentially influence millions of EU citizens (to whom they do not have to answer). The EU constitution leaves this democratic deficit as it is, alas. And as seen by the handling of this directive, the deficit is pretty huge.[1]

I will not go further into the procedural mess and the apparent disrespect of the EC for the EU parliament, but rather concentrate on the different aspects of the directive itself (content). I will do this by stating, and then debunking, the rather dubious claims and arguments made by the pro-directive camp, which, alas, also include some misguided MEPs – though I haste myself to say the large majority of the EU parliament is well aware of the facts, as can be readily seen by the amendments made in the first reading.

The following statements for why it is necessary to have the (current) directive is as follows:

1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential.

2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market.

3)It is needed for the harmonization of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the “we do not change the current practice” or the “it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability” -argument).

I will now debunk all these arguments (sources mentioned at the end of the document) in a rational and clear way, instead of all the misinformation currently being made by many of the softwarepatents (swpat) proponents.

/1)It is necessary for the stimulation and development of new software, so that IT-companies can be innovative to the fullest of their potential./

First of all, we have to ask ourselves, what, exactly, a patent is. A lot of pro-swpat advocates use terms as Intellectual Property (IP) rights, while those encompass a lot of different concepts, such as copyright (which is already used for software). We can find the following definition:

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor or applicant for a limited amount of time (normally 20 years from the filing date)... Per the word's original definition, the theory of patent legislation is to induce the inventor to disclose knowledge for the advancement of society in exchange for a limited period of exclusivity. Since a patent grants the right to exclude others from practicing the invention, it gives the owner a monopoly in the economic sense. There is an ongoing debate about whether the benefits of patents outweigh the costs, particularly with respect to software patents.

A patent, thus, is not meant as an inherent right for financial compensation for the inventor. A patent is a state-ordained monopoly, that excludes others of exploiting or using similar ideas, even when they have come up with those ideas independently by themselves, for a certain time-period. Now, this seems rather unfair (in copyright this is not the case), but apart from that, why does the state give a monopoly to someone, while we all know monopolies are generally not good for the economy, nor for the consumers? This is why: a patent is a monopoly, given by the state, because it (is supposed to) promote innovation. It follows that, if it doesn't achieve its goal of promoting innovation, it should not be granted, period.

Now, while to some extend this may apply to patents in general (as a study done in the 80ies by the Australian government has shown), seen the particular incremental nature of software, and the more intensive studies done on them, it has become ever more clear that softwarepatents DO NOT promote innovation, on the contrary. It logically follows there is no compelling reason in respect to 'stimulating innovation' to grant patents on software.

Some swpat-proponents point to the USA, and claim there the evidence is shown: “the USA has swpat, and look at all those big, mighty IT-corporations!” This, however, is a complete fallacy: they 'forget' to mention that all those big foreign IT-companies were founded and grew to the behemoths they are today, in the ABSENCE of softwarepatents (which, in the USA, only started in earnest after 1991). So, it is not “thanks to” softwarepatents, but rather the reverse. Actually, it could be argued that the IT-business in the USA bloomed, exactly because they weren't patents around, back then. And in fact, this is well known by anyone working in the business of IT, and exactly what a well-known USA CEO has said in the early 90ies, someone who can know it.

Bill Gates said it best, in one of his internal memos:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”

Mind you, this has been said by one of the most prominent IT-CEO on the planet, acknowledging exactly what softwarepatents actually lead too. Not surprisingly, since swpat are allowed in the USA, his solution to the problem was “patenting as much as we can” so he could go for “patent exchanges with [other] large companies”. Of course, Bill had the means to gather together a multi-million dollar software patent portfolio to defend his company (and thus did.) Most of the SME's (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), let alone the individual developer, don't have such means and allowing swpat can only spell hardship for small businesses and open source software in Europe. Already there are over 30,000 patents that have been granted in the EU, waiting for this bill to pass so that they can be enforced.
Even Bruce Chizen, chief executive of Adobe Systems Inc. and chairman of the Business Software Alliance, which is leading the charge for the technology industry in the USA, acknowledges that allowing software patents in the 1990s was a bad idea.

How comes, when Bill and Bruce can see it so clearly, that the EC is unable to see the apparent disastrous consequences of allowing swpat (or a badly written directive that leads to the same)? Luckily, the EU parliament (you) can re mediate this.

Contrary to the pro-swpat camp, it is also possible to refer you to several independent studies and research-papers, which show, time and again, that softwarepatents do not stimulate, but rather inhibit innovation. See appendix A for more info about these studies, some of which clearly indicate that a large part of the money and investment that used to go to R&D, now goes to the legal departments of the companies (in the USA), to fend of lawsuits or to sue others.

/2)It is necessary for the stimulation of EU software business, so we can effectively compete on the world-market./

Alas, this also isn't true. First of all, this isn't true in a broad sense: since innovation isn't stimulated by swpat, one can hardly claim the economy, in the long term, will not suffer also. This is also shown in some of the studies in appendix A, to give a quote:

“Bessen & Hunt show that strategic, anticompetitive and defensive use of patents tends to concentrate in software patents, because they are easier to obtain (they don't require experimentation or prototyping, not even writing a program). They are also broader, because software is not subject to physical constraints and can therefore be composed into more complex systems, potentially infringing on hundreds of patents per program. This causes a patent buildup similar to a cold war arms race that discourages innovation and competition, and instead of bringing new products to consumers, reduces their choice and their access to information society, resulting in significant costs and less productivity for businesses. “

This also hints at the common practize of using softwarepatents: they serve no innovative purpose, but are 'stockpiled' by companies in a defensive manner. These are called portfolios, and big foreign companies like Microsoft and IBM now have tenthousands of swpat in their portfolio, which they use for 'swapping' with each other if they have to come to an agreement, and blocking new players on the market by smothering them with patent-infringements. Obviously, SME's and individual sw-developers do not possess the money, nor the legal strength to compete with the already established, huge swpat-portfolios. Since more then 80% of the workforce in Europe comes from SME's, and not from monolithic companies as in the USA and Japan, it is not difficult to understand what is most beneficial for Europe. This is reflected in the 30.000 patents the EPO already illegally granted (and which this directive would effectively legalise); more of 70% of those patents are of foreign companies, directly, or by proxy. The ones most benefiting from swpat, thus, are huge (mostly foreign) mega-corporations, so-called 'leech-corporations' (corporations who produce nothing, design nothing, contribute nothing, but amass swpat without any intent of actually doing something with it except suing others and profit from continuous litigiousness), and patent lawyers (for the obvious reason). [2]

The big companies using software patents will be constantly trying to increase the size of their software patent empire, so the only way to compete with this is for other giant companies to enter a cold-war style arms race with other companies from which only super-powers will emerge victorious. This is a very anti-competitive environment and very destructive to innovation and small business.

But also in a more strict sense, it makes no sense for Europe (specifically) to allow softwarepatents in Europe to have a competitive edge on the world-market (which is one of the goals of the Lisbon-agenda). This is a fallacy where many, even MEPs who have studied the matter like Maria Allessandra Rossi - though she also made some valuable suggestions - fall for on face value and think it is an advantage for Europe.

However – and I can't stress this enough:

Patents are NOT applied to where the invention is made, but where the patent is filed.

Logic dictates, thus, that EU-corporations *CAN ALREADY* file and 'protect' their IP on the world-market: the only thing for that to happen is that they file their patent abroad, in countries where they have been stupid enough to allow them, such as the USA and Japan. But EU companies *are* protected in the EU (if swpat remain invalid here) against the typical smothering of big foreign companies with huge portfolios.

In every sense, and even only speaking economically without looking at the other reasons not to allow swpat, thus, the EU has a clear economic advantage. WE can sue others, but we can't be sued by others over swpat. For the EU as whole, it becomes apparent that this is very beneficial, maybe to the point where other countries will be forced to abandon their swpat-mentality too, because otherwise they will be in a inherent disadvantage.

Now, it remains puzzling why many people don't seem to get this. A lot of IP-proponents seem to go the way of 'our IP has to be protected' , but – ignoring all other valid considerations not to allow swpat - the irony is, even purely focusing on the economics, the EU is better off NOT having them in the EU, but still being able to apply them abroad.

It seems strange the EU (at least the EC), which in first instance has to look at the best interest of Europe and its citizens, would try to pass a law to “level the playing field” (as some US patent-lawyers have said) in the world-market, so as to allow foreign mega-corporations to sue SMEs into oblivion here too and eliminating the economical advantage we currently have on the international market, compared to those countries that DO allow swpat. So because the USA made the mistake to allow swpat, we should make the same mistake, and loose the economic advantage we currently have compared to them?

/3)It is needed for the harmonization of the internal market, and to retain the status quo. (Similar as the “we do not change the current practice” or the “it will avoid drifting towards US-style patentability” -argument)./

The need for harmonization was actually the first and foremost reason offered by the EC for the directive. This is a noble goal, but one has to ask oneself why it is not possible to harmonize equally as well with a law that explicitly forbids softwarepatents and clearly restricts the applicability (as with the amendments you - the EU parliament - did in first reading), then when using an ambiguous directive like the current one. Harmonization is as well served (if not better) with a clear no, then with an ambiguous “no, but actually yes”.

Now, of course, the EC till now has claimed their form of the directive is as clear as it needs to be - even when it is plain obvious that the restrictions they place are purely for the form (as, as I have said, is typical of bureaucrats and the system they work in). The claim that it maintains the 'status quo' of the guideline of 1973 which said “software as such can not be patented” is ludicrous; in the current proposal, it comes down to:

[A] is not patentable, unless [B] is met.

where [B] is (upon close scrutiny) always met

In this case, it is claimed that software can not be patented, unless there is a technical effect...but what is a technical effect? According to the EC, a technical effect is an effect of a technical nature... this is a tautology and does not explain a thing, rather leaves it to be interpreted as one wishes, much as the EPO “creatively” interpreted the “software as such” clause of 1973. The absence of a real physical effect that involves the laws of nature (as proposed in the amendments of the parliament) were and are detrimental, yet the EC chooses to ignore that. Instead the EC prefers to play with words as in; swpat are not allowed for "normal physical interaction between a program and the computer" - but this means absolutely nothing and is legally nonsensical. It is a magic formula whose usage can be inferred only from recent decisions of the EPO, in which it served to justify the granting of patents on geometrical calculation rules to IBM. In the present case, according to the EPO, the "further technical effect beyond ..." consisted in the economization of space on a computer screen. As can be seen by that example, it is trivially easy to portray any program as a 'process' with some sort of “technical effect”, if the technical effect can be almost anything. It is akin to saying “music can't be patented, unless it is played on instruments or devices”: in every practical sense, you DO make music patentable, then.

There is need (a vital one) for a more restrictive meaning to the EPO wording, for instance based on a recent German court decision which held that economization of computing resources does not constitute a “technical contribution", because otherwise practically all computer-implemented business methods would become patentable subject matter. Since the EC refuses to do this, it is clear that the EC wants to make "computer-implemented" algorithms and business methods patentable in accordance with recent EPO practice, even though they refute it as a lip-service. In any case, when passed as it is now, it WILL have that effect, as is easily demonstrated by the fact that all patent-lawyers actually agree it will allow softwarepatents and one is hard-pressed to find a swpat that would not be allowed and granted, with the current wording. In fact, when the Polish government had the text examined by their legal departments, these confessed it would, in practice, lead to the allowance of all sorts of software, including business-methods portrayed as processes. Yet, somehow, the EC still seems to think they know it better, and hold on to their misplaced dogmatic viewpoint that it provides adequate limitations, where there are, in reality, none.

*Conclusion:*

To allow the directive as it stands now to become law, would be disastrous for the innovation of the IT-sector in the long term, and for the economy of the EU, which exist largely of SME's. It would seriously undermine the ability of SME's and individual developers to actually produce anything, without the lingering threat and danger of a large foreign company with thousands of patents, ready to sue. These effects are denied by the swpat proponents, and are refuted by saying it's only doomsday-talk of Open Source extremists, but in fact, it is based on scientific research, as can be seen in Appendix A.

It also makes no sense to allow swpat in Europe, with the excuse of making them more competitive on the world-market, since patents can already be asked and granted in those countries that have been foolish enough to allow them. Foreign countries can not sue for swpat here: this gives an inherent economical advantage to European corporations, and especially SME's, which don't have the resources and financial possibilities to ward off legal attacks, and – due to the high legal costs - would probably be bankrupt (even when being fully in their right), long before the courts would make a final decision. As a whole, our ability to compete on the world market will not become stronger, but weaker, when softwarepatents are allowed in our internal market, since those profiting the most of such a law are big (foreign) companies with huge portfolios. More then 80% of EU businesses are SME's however – thus, one fails to see any logic in allowing swpat. SME's, btw, overwhelmingly are against softwarepatents. (polls indicate 70-80% of EU IT businesses are against it, which makes one wonder who it is when proponents say 'industry wants it').

Finally, the current proposal does nothing for harmonization or preventing a drift towards USA-style patents, as is claimed by the EC. Instead, it excels in ambiguity and doubletalk, while creatively playing with terminology that must insinuate there are clear limitations, when there are, in fact, none. In fact, it amounts to nothing more then a thinly disguised attempt to make all software patentable.
Claiming that it will merely consolidate the 'status quo' is equally bogus; the current status is, that software patents are not allowed; but because of the ambiguity in the 'as such' clause, the interpretations of some national courts were contradictory, and the EPO (and now the EC) is apparently of the opinion it is 'following current practice' to allow softwarepatents (even when, at the same time, maintaining it doesn't).

For all those reasons, I ask you, a MEP and therefore – regardless of political color or nationality - the direct (and, I may add, in the EU only) representative of its citizens, to amend the proposal of the EC in the same lines as the EU parliament already did in the first reading. [3] That amended proposal was the strict minimum to assure that we have a good directive, therefore, if it ever gets to the 'conciliation procedure' with the EC, and the basic tenets (such as the technical effect) is watered down again, it is better to outright reject the proposal. Better no law then a bad law, after all. And there are more then enough reasons not to allow the standing draft.[4]

I know not all MEPs do their work with the same vigor, but I implore you, since this is of the utmost importance to get it right, and seen the fact there is a high majority needed in the second reading to amend or reject the EC proposal, to go and vote on the matter, even when it is difficult within your agenda to find time. I assure you, this is worth all the effort and time it needs; even if it were only to show that democracy and not bureaucracy has the final word in the EU legislative process, it would still be worthwhile.

I hope you found this manifest interesting and enlightening, and that it conveyed the importance of amending the draft directive in line with the earlier amended version of the parliament.

***

Appendix A
Only a handful of several studies indicating the disastrous effects of swpat on the economy and innovation at large:

An Empirical Look at Software Patents -- James Bessen (Research on Innovation and MIT), Robert M. Hunt (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia), May 2003
James Bessen (Research on Innovation and MIT) and Robert M. Hunt (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia) in a study published in May 2003 present extensive statistical data and analysis to corroborate their hypothesis that software patenting has substituted rather than promoted R&D investments. Software patents are serving as cheap alternatives to real innovation.

Sequential Innovation, Patents, and Imitation - MIT Department of Economics Working Paper by James Bessen and Eric Maskin 2000
This article is written by two researcher from MIT and concludes, after giving mathematical models and experimental evidence, that in a dynamic world such as the software industry or consulting industry, firms may have plenty of incentive to innovate without patents and patents may constrict complementary innovation. It concludes that copyright protection for software programs (which has gone through its own evolution over the last decade) may have achieved a better balance than patent protection. This new model suggests another, different rationale for narrow patent breadth than the recent economic literature on this subject.

Deepak Somaya & David J. Teece 2000-11-30: Combining Inventions in Multi-invention Products: Organizational Choices, Patents, and Public Policy
Detailed study of the transfer costs generated by the patent system under various conditions, written by Deepak Somaya, economist at the University of Maryland, and David Teece, senior colleague at Univ of California in Berkely. The study estimates the (very high) transfer costs that are caused by patents in complex systems and examines various strategies for reducing these costs at the micro- and macro-economic (public policy) level.

Robert M. Hunt: You can patent that?
Article by an economist about the effects of Software and Business method patents in the USA and their history, including statistics, shows the role of the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit (CAFC), installed in the 1980s, lowered all barriers to patentability and made increasingly difficult to have patents revoked.

Waterson & Ireland: An Auction Model of Intellectual Property Protection: Patent vs Copyright
Michael Waterson and Norman Ireland, economists from the University of Warwick, constructs a parametrised game model to simulate the innovation game under a regime of pharma patents, plant variety protection, software patents and software copyright as well as many other situations. The model contains some simplifications that work in favor of patents. E.g. it does not consider monopoly-based welfare losses, which are at the center of many economic analyses of the patent system. Instead its social welfare is simply the aggretation of the potential players expected utilities. Also it does not consider the need for modularity and interoperability in the software world. Yet, the model depicts many observable phenomena quite well, and it leads to the conclusion that software patents have a negative effect on innovation while pharma patents and software copyright has a positive effect.

Stimuler la concurrence et l'innovation dans la Société d'Information
A systematic introduction to intellectual property rights, software economics and the interaction of the two. The beginning chapters provide very good introductory reading, the final chapters present proposals to European politics. The website contains links to many studies.

J.P. Smets 1999: Software Useright: Solving Inconsistencies of Software Patents
A mathematical model describing the economic effects of sofware patents and a concept for solving some of the problems: the distinction between copyright and useright.

Tang, Adams, Paré 2000: Patent Protection of Computer Programs
Study on Software Patents carried out by British researchers at the order of the European Commission's General Directorate for Enterprises. The findings of this study are partially based on the ESRCIP project (see above). It's purpose is to find out how software SMEs deal with Intellectual Property Rights in general and patents in particular, how useful patents are for them and what can be done to raise patent awareness. The study finds that we are not in a "pro-patent era" but rather in a "pro ipr area", and that software patents are not very much appreciated by software SMEs and probably not very helpful for them.

Intellectual Property Initiative 2000
A large british research project which concludes that the patent system as it stands in the year 2000 is in general less than helpful an instrument for fostering research and development in small and medium enterprises.

Commissariat Général du Plan 2002/10/17: Rapport sur l'Économie du Logiciel
A report of the French State Commission on Economic Planning published on 2002/10/17 gives figures about the software industry in France (270000 employees, 31,6 bn eur turnover in 1999), sees France's software economy handicapped by proprietary standards and patent dangers and recommends that algorithms and business methods should not be patentable, formats and standards should be exempted and patents for technical inventions that use software should be limited in duration to 3-5 years.

Studie von Fraunhofer und MPI über die wirtschaftlichen Auswirkungen von Softwarepatenten
In 2001-01, the German Federal Ministery of Economy and Technology (BMWi) ordered a study on the economic effects of software patentability from well known think tanks with close affinity to the German patent establishment: the Fraunhofer Institute for Innovation Research (ISI.fhg.de), the Fraunhofer Patent Agency (PST.fhg.de) and the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law (MPI = intellecprop.mpg.de). The study was largely concluded in 2001-06 and preliminary results were presented to a selected audience. The final report was published by the BMWi on 2001-11-15. The study is based on an opinion poll answered by several hundred software company representatives and independent software developpers, conducted by Fraunhofer ISI. Most respondents have had little experience with software patents and don't want software patents to become a daily reality like in the US. The poll also investigated the significance of open source software for these companies and found it to be of substantial importance as a common infrastructure. Based on these findings, the Fraunhofer authors predict that an increase in the use of software patents will put many software companies out of business and slow down innovation in the software field. The study then jumps to conclude that software patents must be legalised and SMEs must be better informed about them. This surprising conclusion is drawn by the patent law scholars from MPI. The MPI's legal study does not explore any ways to redraw the borders between patents and copyright but just takes the EPO and USPTO practise as an inevitable reality. They find that the EPO's caselaw is contradictory and chaotic and blame this on Art 52.2c EPC, which they say has failed to provide clear guidance and should therefore be deleted. Business related algorithms are, they say, less likely to be patented at the EPO than algorithms that "stand in a tradition of engineering". The MPI writers however do not try to provide a clear rule for distinguishing the two, and they oppose the idea of drawing a line between the physical and the logical ("technical inventions" vs "rules of organisation and calculation") as done by lawcourts in the 70s and 80s, asserting that information is also a physical phenomenon. They propose that all legislative power concerning the limits of patentability be handed over to the EPO, which should then, at its discretion and as far as Art 27 TRIPs allows, consult experts of interested parties for regular rewriting of its Examination Guidelines. Art 27 TRIPs demands that patents be "available in all fields of technology", and the MPI understands "technology" as "the useful arts" and is careful not to mention Kolle and other European theoreticians of the concept of technical invention. Summarily the study can be summarised as "Fraunhofer: software patents are unpopular in the software industry and dangerous to innovation and competition. MPI: Fine, so let's legalise them quickly."

Commissariat Général du Plan 2002/10/17: Rapport sur l'Économie du Logiciel
A report of the French State Commission on Economic Planning published on 2002/10/17 gives figures about the software industry in France (270000 employees, 31,6 bn eur turnover in 1999), sees France's software economy handicapped by proprietary standards and patent dangers and recommends that algorithms and business methods should not be patentable, formats and standards should be exempted and patents for technical inventions that use software should be limited in duration to 3-5 years.

The Economic Impact of Patentability of Computer Programs
A patent advocacy text by the London Intellectual Property Institute, ordered by the Industrial Property Unit at the European Commission (CEC Indprop), finished in spring 2000, held back until Oct 2000. The name is misleading: this is not an economic study. There is only one chapter which deals with economics but even this chapter only roughly summarises third parties's works. Basically this pseudo-study only restates well-known beliefs of civil servants from the british patent establishment who at the time were in charge of the European Commission's Industrial Property Unit at DG Markt (Directorate General for the Internal Market). Yet, while main author Robert Hart is a well known patent lawyer and lobbyist, the economics chapter was written by an outsider, Peter Holmes. It provides evidence to show that software patents have damaging effects on economic development and tries to balance this by adding some unreasoned statements in favor of software patents. Holmes later explained that he had no other choice in view of the "convictions" of his partners. Yet the CEC Indrop people did not like the study: they locked it away for half a year. During this time the European patent establishment was preparing to rewrite Art 52 EPC so as to remove all limits of patentability. In October 2000, after the plans been dropped, CEC/Indprop suddenly published the IPI treatise and used it as a basis for a "consultation exercise". From then on, various pro software patent proposals from Brussels have again and again relied on this "economic study" for justification.

Daniel Probst: Software-Patentability from a macro-economic point of view
Dr. Probst forscht an der Universität Mannheim über die Ökonomie des Patentwesens. In diesem für eine Anhörung dem Deutschen Bundestages am 2001-06-21 eingereichten Papier argumentiert er, dass Patentmonopole aus volkswirtschaftlicher Sicht immer als je nach ihrem Anwendungsgebiet mehr oder weniger notwendige Übel angesehen werden. Wobei im Bereich der Software wenig Notwendigkeit und viel Übel zu erkennen ist. Viele der herkömmlich von Patentexperten propagierten Glaubenssätze sind aus volkswirtschaftlicher Sicht falsch, da auf simplistischen Modellen beruhend. Bisherige Erkenntnisse deuten darauf hin, dass Softwarepatente die gesamte Produktivität und Innovationskraft der betroffenen Branchen mindern. In einem Bereich wie der Software sollte der Staat, wenn ihm an der Vitalität der Softwarebranche gelegen ist, in öffentliche Infrastrukturen wie z.B. Bildung, Forschung und Netzwerk-Hardware investieren.

Bronwyn H. Hall & Rose Marie Ham: The Patent Paradox Revisited
Research work done at Univ. of California, Berkely, published 1999 by National Bureau of Economic Research Inc. Finds that the surge in patents in the semiconductor industry in the 1980-90s does not reflect a surge in R&D activity.

Kortum & Lerner 1998: What is behind the recent surge in patenting
Since the late 1980s, the number of patents granted to US companies by the USPTO has sharply risen. Many people believe that this is due to a more patent-friendly policy created by political changes in the early 80s such as the Bayh-Dole act and the institution of the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This study collects statistical data to suggest that a surge in patentable innovation and an improvement in patent-oriented innovation managment may be more important causes. It also shows that software and biotech, while considered to be the most important areas of innovation, still amount for a total of only about 5% of the US patents. While patent-oriented innovation was on the rise, R&D investments on the whole dropped. This is one of a series of studies by Samuel Kortum and Josh Lerner from the Department of Economics of Boston University.

Lester C. Thurow 1997: Needed: A New System of Intellectual Property Rights: Squeezing today's innovations into yesterday's system simply won't work

US National Research Council 2000: The Digital Dilemma
According to this report by the US National Research Council, software patents were introduced by lawcourt decisions without support from the legislature, and it seems doubtful whether the patent expansion is promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, as Congress intended. The Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has taken the patent system into "unchartered waters", and the experience of the software industry suggests that this decision is urgently awaiting legislative review.

Mandeville et al 1982: Economic Effects of the Australian Patent System
A Commissioned Report to the Industrial Property Advisory Committee. Contains statistics about the use of the patent system as a source of information and as a source of revenues. Its general reasoning and conclusions are similar to those of most economists, especially Fritz Machlup.

***

Appendix B

[1] The democratic deficit of the EU institutions in general, and the undemocratic way of the EC in particular, have already led to several commentaries in the press, as this article from The Register shows:

“DO A SEARCH on "banana republic" in Google and the second entry is the Council of the European Union.
Why? Presumably because so many news sites have been describing the Council's recent action over software patents as the kind of action only a non-accountable banana republic would take.
The only accountable unit in our vast €urocracy is the European Parliament. And only by overturning the EC's dictat will the members of that parliament overturn the decision by the Council, lobbied as it is by some of the biggest multinational vested interests in the world.”

[2] Recently, EICTA lobbyists in Brussels have said to several MEPs that they have made a poll which shows that 97% of the software companies want patents. The basis for this is a poll made by Bitkom which in fact says that 52% of the respondents said that they wanted to "preserve the status quo or reduce patentability". We have not yet found out how the poll was made, but it is clear that at Bitkom the patent question is in the hands of IBM's patent lawyer Fritz Teufel, and it is likely that these 52% were from a population of corporate lawyers. Hardly a basis for EICTA's lobbying, let alone their bogus claim.

But, one may ask, who is EICTA, and what is their relationship with swpat in Europe? As it turns out, while they themselves claim to speak for the entire software industry, they are actually representing exactly the companies that one would expect to lobby for swpat, and that gain the most, to the detriment of SME's: it is largely a group of patentlawyers and big foreign companies, with the occasional big European one (Nokia, for instance). No wonder they are lobbying, but every MEP should smell it is fishy that the “best interest of Europe” is promoted by such an organisation. Megacorporations only focus on one thing: that what is best for their own profits, and for their shareholders, not what is best for Europe and its citizens. Luckily, the day has not yet come that we let CEO's decide on the future, public interest, and well-being of a nation or the EU, or we would quickly find ourselves back in the rampant, extreme darwinistic-capitalism of the 19th century.

In contrast, while the EICTA represents only the big, mostly foreign, companies, yet claims they speak for “the IT-industry”, the reality is different. Apart from the worldwide Open Source movement and the thousands of persons (for instance, almost 400000 people signed in support for the amended directive on the eurolinuxsite), many of whom are individual developers (some even of great fame, like Linus Torvalds (Linux) and R.Stallman (GNU/GPL)) , the current swpat draft of the EC is also being opposed by UEAPME, representing more than 11 million enterprises, which in turn employ around 50 million people in the whole of Europe. It seems rather hypocritical, then, that the EICTA (and even some MEPs, like McCarthy) claim they agree to the swpat-directive in the interest of the EU and SME's, when those are clearly in majority against it.

[3]
European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions (COM(2002) 92 - C5-0082/2002 - 2002/0047(COD))

[4] Apart from the reasons I elaborated on in this paper, there are myriads of other reasons. A small summary of the 'top ten reasons' was made by ISFO:

1. There are currently no costs, waiting periods, or application forms required for software development. Patentability would radically change this and would invalidate many development and business models.
2. Software already has "ownership rights" via the copyright system. Copyright is instant, costs nothing, and doesn't interfere with independent development.
3. If companies could purchase exclusive rights to the use of techniques required by their de facto standards, they could choose their competitors. "Competition" would become an inside joke, and preventing competition would be completely legal and above board.
4. Small and medium enterprises can't afford patents, they can't spare time for patent searches and they can't risk the cost of contesting an accusation in court.
5. The patent term (20 years) is absurdly long in terms of the software industry.
6. Innovation in software is incremental, new ideas build on the old. To advance the state of the art, developers must be permitted to build on top of the state of the art.
7. Software is abstract, like maths. Software ideas can be described in any number of ways, so searches for software patents would be hit-and-miss. Reliably avoiding patent infringement would be impossible.
8. Engineering, manufacturing, and pharmaceutical patents are industrial regulations. Software idea patents would place restrictions on what all businesses and all individual computer owners can do with their computer.
9. In the USA, to get around the burden of software idea patents, the Big Players of the software industry have formed cartel-like patent sharing agreements. Small and medium enterprises cannot afford to join these agreements, and NONE of the Big Players are European companies.
10. For Europe to develop it's own software industry, we must retain the right to write our own software - without having to ask permission or pay royalties to current (foreign) market leaders.

Note that, while the benefits of patents as a whole can be doubted to a certain degree depending on the field it is applied to, software is particularly affected. The reasons are being mentioned in the different points, and also summarised by R.Stallman (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html ):

“The result is that even when you write a program yourself, you are using lots of different ideas, and any one of them might be patented by somebody. A pair of them may be patented as a combination by somebody. There might be several different ways of describing one idea which might be patented by various different people. So there are possibly thousands of things, thousands of points of vulnerability in your program, which might be patented by somebody else already. This is why software patents tend to obstruct the progress of software- the work of software development. If it were one patent-one product, then these patents wouldn't obstruct the development of products because if you developed a new product, it wouldn't be patented by somebody else already. But when one product corresponds to many different ideas combined, it becomes very likely your new product is going to be patented by somebody else already. In fact, there is economic research now showing just how imposing a patent system on a field where there is incremental innovation, can retard progress. You see, the advocates of software patents say "well yes, there may be problems but more important than any problems, the patents must promote innovation and that is so important it doesn't matter what problems you cause". Of course, they don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous but implicitly they want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to believe it does promote progress. We now have a model showing precisely how patents can retard progress. The case where that model can fit describes the software field pretty well; Incremental innovation.”

Online sources:

http://www.bralyn.net/etext/literature/bill.gates/challenges-strategy.txt

http://www.flashant.org/b2mobile.php

http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/mirror/impact/index.en.html

http://www.xolinc.com/blog/index.php?id=34

http://www.epip.ruc.dk/Papers/ROSSI_Paper.pdf

http://plone.ffii.org/prmat/parlmag0406/longer

http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com

http://www.groklaw.net/index.php

http://www.eurolinux.org/

http://www.ffii.org

http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/current/

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=140459&cid=11768660

http://www.ffii.org/~jmaebe/epecosci0502/SoftwarePatent.pdf

http://www.epip.ruc.dk/Papers/Hall_MacGarvie_Paper.pdf

http://ukcdr.org/issues/eucd/

http://www.dailyjournal.com/calLawyer/index.cfm?sid=&tkn=&eid=645556&evid=1

http://ueapme.com/EN/index.shtml

http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PatentPlayers

http://books.nap.edu/html/digital_dilemma/ch5.html#REF41

http://www.tinaja.com/glib/casagpat.pdf

http://www.researchineurope.org/

http://ifso.ie/projects/swpats.html

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html

Gazing the future

2005-07-05T11:37:00.000+02:00

Recently, I (re)stumbled upon an article called "Environmental Heresies". A good and interesting read for sure, but, like with all these kind of articles, the author (futurologists, they are called, I believe) makes the same basic mistakes as all his predecessors. I'll give some rebutal and critcism:

His first point, about slowing demographics, is not very much disputable: it is as it is, and if it's in decline, it's in decline. However, whether we will level out completely, or go down, or up again, is not as clear cut as he seems to portray. The author gives as main reason that people go to cities, but I think this explanation is inadequate, and certainly not enough to explain the changing demographics.

It should be noted, for instance, that, during the middle ages, the amount of children born in cities were no less then those on the countryside. What *did* change, though, is the empowerement of women (most notably in matters of procreation) and social and medical advancements. THOSE are the real reasons why demographics change. It also follows that, if, by some disaster or serious economic and scientific decline we would degrade into former levels of welfare and reduced possibility for women to control any family planning, demographics would go up again. It is therefor not an absolute certitude that the world-demographics will continue to decline...this is only true as an extrapolation, if everything remains more or less the same. However, it is exactly the danger of this sort of extrapolation that the author is (also) lamenting against.

As for genetically modified (GM) crops, I fear he really simplifies the subject too much to be useful in making a rational decision about the pro's and cons. Basically, he over-optimistically only conveys the pros, while barely mentionning any of the cons - as if they were unimportant.

It should be noted however, that with living organisms, you can not simply test it out in the wild, and then expect to be able to put the genie back in the bottle when things go wrong. Once you contaminated a natural area, and the contamination has a sufficiently advantage (in a darwinistic sense) to stay around in the genepool, there is no way in hell you can get rid of it completely, when it turns out it is damaging humans, or other species and ecological systems.

Now, his counterargument that those won't survive in the wild seems rather weak. In effect, some GM genes *already* have contaminated other 'wild' crops, and it didn't sizzle out in the wild, on the contrary (a prominent example of that are some strains of GM corn in south-america). So... it may be that some GMs will not survive in the wild, but you can bet some *will*, however. And he, nor anyone else, can garantuee that such GM or hybrid crops can't be damaging or unhealthy to the ecosystem or local species, including humans.

Also, the reductionistic view of "we're not doing anything else then what people have been doing for centuries" is somewhat misleading too. Yes, people have been breeding crops, and cultivated crops are not 'natural' in the sense that they occur in the wild...but it's an unfair analogy, because one is comparing oranges with apples. For instance, with GM, it is perfectly possible to make genemodifications between two completely different species of plants. In effect, this trans-species swapping of genes with GM, can be done between animals and plants. In all those centuries that "we have always done this" I would like to see any example where this has actually been done before.

No; this is a totally new technique, with new possibilities, certainly, but also new consequences (which we don't know anything about) and new dangers. You can't just shrug those of with claiming, falsely, that we've been using those techniques for millenia. And you can't just merrily test it out in the wild, and see if anything happens.

Apart from that, even purely economically, I doubt it has all those beneficial effects the author claims it has or will have - but more about that at the end.

About his weather and nuclear fission chapter... well, I agree with that part, mostly. I do think the greens are just dead wrong in their crusification of nuclear power. Sure, as the author says, it has problems of its own, but those are really minute compared to the far larger and imminent (and worldwide) threat of global warming (ok, I know, there is debate about that too, but I think not many will actually dispute humans HAVE an effect on the climate, though the extend may not be as clear cut). Fine if you shut those reactors down, IF YOU HAVE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE - but, wishful thinking aside, there currently is *none*. The author correctly points out, that, even if you combine all other alternatives together, you still will only have a fraction of the energy-production needed. Thus, logic dictates that you continue to use nuclear fission, untill those alternatives can actually completely replace them (which is doubtful, and in some countries outright impossible), or a new energy-source can replace it (like nuclear fusion reactors).

In any case, the problem of 'global warming' forces us to make choices, and I'd prefer the new, inherently safer NG reactors with their very limited risks and their total lack of CO2, then 'buying clean air' (which doesn't make the air cleaner) or dreaming about alternative energies that can never, pragmatically, provide the energy needed. And it certainly beats the ONLY other viable option: to mass build classic energy-facilities, which use coal or petrol and would constitute an enormous increase in CO2 and extra global warming.

So, in conclusion; the author is fully right about some things, but a bit too simplistic (and, perhaps, biased) in other points. The nuclear/weather point is, indeed, logical. The world-demographics is correct, though there is a need for caution as to determine what is the cause, and if simple extrapolation is enough to make a conclusion. As for the GM-crops, I fear he is a bit misguided himself; this is obvious by the naive assumption of how much 'good' GM-crops will do - which is, I suspect, derived from an overly (and typical USA) optimistic viewpoint on capitalism, which I don't share.

GM-corporations do not care about worldhunger, nor about the living quality of poor farmers in third (or first, for that matter) worldcountries. What matters to them is maximising profit for their shareholders. In the authors' view, this is fully compatible with eachother, but I rather think that, in the end, you can't have both: if it's really about maximising profit, then it is about holding control of the market, and if it's about control, then it's not about the freedoms and abilities and rights of the farmer. This already can be seen by the fact many GM corporations have forbidden the 'seeds-keeping' right of farmers (=the right to keep seeds of one season to use for planting next year). It's an age-old right, giving farmers some independence - but if it were up to GM corps, it would be abolished as soon as possible, so farmers become fully dependend on THEIR seeds. Or they would create plants that don't have seeds anymore, like a lot of GM corps have already done.

No, rest assured, GM foods are not going to solve worldhunger (which is primarely a matter of distribution, not production; there currently *is* already an overproduction in the West of many foods, after all!), nor liberate farmers, on the contrary. Prime examples can be seen at http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm and http://www.percyschmeiser.com/MonsantovsFarmers.htm.

This is apart from the equally fundamental objection that I raised earlier, namely that one can not rule out the possibility of (damaging) GM effects that DO survive and thrive in the wild...and which can't be put back into the bottle once released. I doubt many people would be happy if some corp said: "we've got a whole bunch of genetically modified but potentially beneficial viruses and microbes; let's bring them out in the wild!" There, the dangers are obvious to everyone - but with plants, they fail to realise that it is the same dangerous principle.

I leave it up to the readers to determine the worth of my criticism, but at least I think I made some valid points. Indeed, not only hystorical analysis, but also gazing the future should always been done while using critical glasses.

A game of fun

2005-06-21T18:03:00.000+02:00

A new version of UQM has come out, which stands for Ur-Quan Masters, which in turn is actually a ported, open-source implementation of Starcontrol II (SC2).

Now, even hearing this, not all that many will know what I am talking about. Neither did I, before I stumbled upon it thanks to (yeah, I know...) slashdot, when 0.3 was just out. Now, I like free games, and I especially like *good* free games, and many arcade games and other 'oldies' ARE in fact, often extremely good. Which is why I love the internet (well, one of the reasons): you can almost find all the golden oldies online for free, these days. This includes one of my favorites: civilisation II (which, for some reason, I even prefer more then civ3 - just like with SC3, which absolutely sucked, I heared).

Now, it is difficult to say WHAT exactly is so appealing about old games, and especially SC2. I never played nor even heard about it in the past (was an amiga/sega/atari game or something, I forgot), and while the graphics may have been extra-ordinary in the early 90ies, it only shows how much graphics have improved since then.

When I first tried it, my primary reaction was rather disappointment, even to the brink of getting completely rid of it, almost. No smooth-looking state-of-the-art-graphics, that's for sure. It showed some simple 'spacevessel' on a simple presentation of our solarsystem, and you were supposed to guide it towards the planets. It looked crude, simplistic, totally out-of-date and obsolete with a stupid navigation. This is the normal reaction, when one is used to 21st century games, rest assured. I once showed and pushed a friend of trying it out too (with the 0.3 version), and when I asked what he thought of it, he told me he trew it away after the first minutes. It was only after he'd played it for some time with me on my computer, that he actually started to like it.

So, what is the secret?

Well, it is difficult to put your finger on. Like most oldies, it's not about the graphics, it's about the *depth* of the game. The way things are portrayed. Simple, yes, but with a good story and an appealing gameplay. Starcontrol is, even today, a jewel in that regard, and it must have been an overwhelmingly awesome game when it was first released. One of its strengths is that it has it all, as far as arcade goes. It has the typical 2D 'melee' fights between two spacecrafts - ah, the nostalgic memories! It has the basic 2D scooter-shoot-aliens-on-the-planet-and collect-valuables which we all loved to play on those mysterious electronic machines on the fare, when we were kids, remember? All very simple considering todays standards, but fun in a pac-man way, nevertheless.

But, aside that, it has also RPG elements in it, and some strategic gameplay - and, most importantly, the game is HUGE. Even for todays' standards, the amount of stars and planets one can go to is immense, and one can only wonder how this must have made an impression when it first came out. The 'world' (starmap) that one has to its disposition is so vast, it reminded me of the world of Morrowind (although that is a more modern and totally different game, obviously). The alien characters you encounter are sublime, original, and often funny as hell. More then once, I was laughing aloud because of the totally hilarious dialogs some aliens would engage in. Ofcourse, there is also a more serious side to it, with a well-thought-of, in-depth story, ancient mysteries to solve... and Earth to save, of course.

That's why, even when my first impression was 'throw it in the bin', it really IS getting under your skin after a while; so, be warned: it's addictive!

Now, what's new in 0.4 from version 0.3? Well, a lot of bug-fixes, obviously, but you don't really see that (unless you encountered a bug ;-). It's very stable to play, even as beta, now, but that was true even for the 0.3 version, frankly. Improved graphics in some cases (improved in the original-90ies sense: I repeat, DO NOT expect flashy 3D graphics). Optional new (remixed) music from the precursors, at least when you manually insert them (for the moment, the tendency of the coders is to be as perfectionistic as possible to the original). And truth be told: even the original music can be quite good.

The most obvious things are the intro and ending sequence - which didn't exist on the 0.3 version: a slide of 'oldie' graphics which are today completely obsolete, but cute in a nostalgic way. The other major improvement is the options in 'settings', which has considerably improved, and which allows you to actually make some resolution-settings, game-play options, make use of a graphic accelerator, etc. This was, indeed, a very welcome improvement. For the full list of changes, go here.

And now, download and enjoy!

Feedback

2005-06-06T17:50:00.000+02:00

As promised, I thought it was time for some feedback for those that responded. I'll go top to bottom:

Fingerprinting in cyberspace

Anonymous1: Well, yes and no. Not OS-wise, low level or not. But you could 'spoof' the time-stamp, if you dynamically and randomly reset your computers' clock every time you send something out (or at least, frequently do so). This is within the realm of the possible, but not all that convenient to do, and none of the anonymous P2P systems I know of use this or even try. Basically, you wouldn't get rid of the time-skew, but you would make it impossible to reliable determine that it came from your computer, and thus they wouldn't be able to uniquely indentify you(r box).

Nextgen: The uniquely identifying characteristics of the clock-skew is independent of the CPU usage. However, I have spoken with Toad (coder of freenet) about this and he sees this as no threat to anonimity in regard to Freenet. If the nodes don't rely the request as a router, but act as if the requests come from their box, then obviously, the timestamp/clock-skew will be of that particular node that last send the request (which is analysed by RIAA/etc.). In that case, it doesn't, indeed, interfere with the "reasonable deniability" claim one can make, because one can still claim that, while it's your timestamp/clock-skew, the originating request does not come from you. Much as is the case with the IP itself, thus.

The way Freenet goes wrong

chiraz: well, thanks for the compliment. :-) Though I'm as much being viled for my remarks as praised, frankly. Usually, by those that don't like my comments, I'm readily depicted as a troll. Ah well, it's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess, but it won't stop me from pointing out things that *I* think are important issues. This can be a bit less then diplomatic, but on the other hand, I always try to give rational arguments for what I say or claim, and I try to be consistent and not fall into ad hominem attacks. Things true trolls (or even many slasdotters) have difficulties with, sometimes.

As for your questions; the 'publishing' indexes are the best you can get to search Freenet, because, as I said, a true search-engine in google-like style is not implemented, and suggestions I made in this regard have been dismissed. Yet, I still think this is one of the huge drawbacks of Freenet. (Though the major one being that it is very slow and unresponsive, which the new version may or may not improve on). I think Toad already knows about zero-knowledge, but since it's closed source (I believe), and the system is quite different, I don't think he or Ian are inclined to use much from it. In fact, I2P is much more usefull in this respect, and even there they hardly use any ideas, let alone code, from it.

It should be noted that 'absolute anonimity' does not exist, and even the Freenetcoders themselves acknowledge this, as can be seen on 'attacks and weaknesses' on www.freenethelp.org. So, it revolves around the level of anonimity, indeed. However, I must say that the stronger the anonymity is, the better - in all cases - if everything else remains the same, ofcourse. Ofcourse, that's nice in principle, but in a practical sense, you always have an inherent trade-off, which often translates in anonymity versus speed/etc. I would think that, depending on the cause, most people would rather have speed then anonimity as a general rule - however, when the RIAA steps up its legal attacks, for instance, the level of anonimity reqiuired could well augment too. So it really depends on how much one is prepared to sacrifice ease-of-use or speed, versus the ability to remain anonymous, which, in turn, is dependent on what a user is prepared to do for additional safety and on external factors.

All by all, I would say that once a system is difficult enough to 'get into' for the RIAA that it's not worth the trouble anymore, then you are probably safe enough with non-military strength anonymous systems. In fact, very lightly encrypted systems could do the trick, if you remain with social P2P networks ('friends only'). the difficulty there would not be the level of anonimity of the system itself for the RIAA, but rather the difficulty of finding P2P based small social networks, getting into that network, and actually prosecuting persons (since in most countries, sharing among friends is legally allowed in some instances). Clearly, the **AA would not find the trouble worthwile to try to infiltrate such small networks (even if they could), just for the insure possibility of sueing a very small group of people. (There are also drawbacks ofcourse, such as a comparitavily limited amount of data on the network).

But, extremely strong anonymous P2P systems are not really necessary, for RIAA purposes only, I would say. However, states, agencies and some other companies have much more to lose/gain, and often much more power and willingness to pursue individuals. the classical example of the chinese dissident comes into mind, but also whistleblowers in Western countries, which often are threatened, sued or forbidden to bring their embarrassing revalations into the public. clearly, there, you need a very strong level of anonymity, because a weak one will be broken and thus only delude someone into thinking he is safe. For those kind of people I think it is imperative that they have true, strong anonymity. The 'acceptable level' there obviously needs to be a lot higher then for joe doe that wants to download an mp3.

Eric: Glad to hear you recognise the feeling. Sometimes, I have the impression Ian acts as if I'm the only one - some lone whiner - that has any critique on Freenet, but obviously this is false, and here as well as in private email, I have had a lot of responses showing that mpany people have the same complaints about the project. The sooner he realises that, the sooner he might coime to the insight that maybe what all those people say DOES, in fact, have a basis, and something should be done. (Fat chance, I know ;-)

That said, I still think Freenet, on itself, is a cool project, at least in principle. I never heard of Kenosis, frankly. I had a look, and it seems interesting, albeit in an embryonic sate...and I'm also not sure how active development actually is (?). Anyway, I have had similar offers in the past from MUTE and a lot of others, but I must say I'm already busy enough with Freenet and I2P, and I'mnot looking for yet a third anonimity project at this time. If the new version of Freenet turns out to be, once again, useless, however, I might decide to quit my involvement with the project completely, and look for another project. I'll keep Kenosis in mind, and I'll have a look now and then, rest assured. :-)

Anonymous2: Ah well, yes, some can be pretty rude. I never understood that attitude, because, at the end, it are your own users/contributors you arte chasing away. Unless, ofcourse, you consider all non-coders as nuisances, and not as contributors, as Ian often has the tendency to do.

Anonymous3: Indeed, a monumental difference!! Ermm...well, a difference, anyway ;-). As a non-native english speaker, I must say I have huge difficulties with some things, and this is one of them. I never can say whether it should be then or than, and, in fact, the question almost never comes up. I sorta automatically assume and use then in almost all instances. It really is an automatism; being wrongly yet utterly convinced it's written correctly. I'll try to pay attention to it, but seen the fact it's an automatism, it's actually harder to do so then with english words that I doubt. (In fact, my latest slashdot-article (about cosmos 1) shows the same error, as other pedantic nerds have friendly pointed out ;-).

Anonymous4: well, I would swich the 'church' and 'experiments' around. ;-) Actually, I think Toad does his best, and maybe even Ian has good intentions, but both have the tendency to rigidly do what they were already planning to do, *whatever* others may say. Add bad management and a big ego in the case of Ian, and you already know why many of his projects, while interesting, never seem to work properly. But please keep giving money, whetever anonymous sytem you prefer! the concept as a whole is really important and necessary to implement (and will become more so in the future, I fear).

Freedom of speech, the paradigm

Anonymous5: Thanks for the "Fire in a crowded theater"-pointer. You make very good points, and, with your quotes, describe exatly what I wanted to convey. Indeed, it hits the nail exactly, and I feel a bit of despair, sometimes, when I try to convey those basic thoughts and principles of free speech to my friends, most of whome are earopeans, and have that strange tendency of free-speech ambiguity. In my vision, free speech CAN be absolute, as long as you define free speech adequatly. If the main goal is conveying thoughts, ideas and concepts to another person, with the presemtion of a possibility to mutual communication (debate, thus), then all should be allowed, indeed. If the main goal is something else, like creating panic in a theatre, or hurting someone (even when only with slander) one could make a case that it isn't a matter of free speech at all. Revionistic books clearly convey an idea, thought or concept (wrongly as it may be), and it is possible to write rebutals in response, so...

However, I doubt the tendency in europa is going to improve, in this respect. Halo1 once claimed that my theory of the 'slipping slope' was not correct; that people would not broaden the 'racism' card to stiffle more free speech. Alas, this turns out to be untrue: many EU countries continue to impose immer stringent laws that stiffle free speech more and more. It used to be that 'racist speech' was forbidden. Then revionistic books about jews were forbidden, even though most of those books weren't racist (at least not openly). Now, some countries have gone even further, like in belgium, where they made a law that ANY book that 'minimised' any 'genocide' was to be forbidden. Where the belgian judges were to decide what was to be considered minimising the violence, deciding what constitutes and count as genocide and what not, etc. Thus, soon, one could get sued for whatever one writes about whatever attrocity commited by whatever ethnic group, if it is deemed that you do not adequately describe the gravity of it.

Now, whatever moral objections one may have, and I certainly abhor human suffering and violence as much as the next person, I'd rather have the truth, then some emotionally inspired self-righteous moral pressure that the state deems it should impose on (the free speech of) people. Luckily, that belgian law was SO absurd and untaniable vague, I heard they were going to amend it. But whatver comes out, it will still suck, nevertheless.

Ofcourse, not only europeans can be so ambigious towards free speech. Even free-speech proponents in the USA, like Ian, have dificulties with it. (Ok, he has come back to europe, so technically, he's no longer a USA dude, but still...) You are either for free speech, or not. Yet, some people, like Ian, have a distrubingly hypocrite way in looking at free speech. This became apperent in one of the latest discussions I had on his blog - which he, ofcourse, censored afterwards by deleting it:

Well, tastes differ, aparently, so I can't say it's the best I ever heard,
but it's not bad at all, true.

BTW, it is '...who do you want to be with ?'

Without doubt, of all your projects, this Indy stuff is the best you (and/or your bro) have ever made. At least in the actual-working-good departement.
(I'll refrain from saying why, because otherwise this will get deleted again. You see? Censorship works! ;-)

#1 Newsbyte on 2005-05-15 11:08 (Reply)
If you want freedom of speech, you are welcome to start your own blog. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are a guest here, and I reserve the right to delete any comment where you appear to forget that.

#1.1 Ian Clarke on 2005-05-15 11:38 (Reply)
Well, I didn't say you don't have the right (and even when I would, the point would be rather moot, in a pragmatical sense). Obviously, I can't really do anything about it.
But nevertheless, seen your projects (like freenet), which completely revolve around free speech, and which you defend with free-speech arguments, it rather seems weird that you would have such high regards for free speech, but not on your blog.

You can call persons who make comments as being 'guests', but the fact is, your blog is publically accessible, and since you ask for comments, one could as easily regard them as contributors to your blog. Regardless, either way it does not imply that one can't give criticism (at least, that's my viewpoint, maybe you think 'guests' or contributors should only speak positively?).

If it were spam or the like, one would have an argument for deleting it. I think even you have to agree, however, that none of my posts were spam. Mostly, they were bugreports about Indy, but those where I mentionned that Indy works far better then any of your other projects - at least in my opinion - got deleted. Apart from the question about you having the capability of deleting those comments, does that strike you as being right or fair, in particular?

I'll leave the answer up to you.

If you are openminded, I'm willing to argument WHY Indy is working-wise, far better then any of your other projects thusfar - even though, as concepts, they are all pretty interesting (and I've tried all of them out, btw), with factual examples. But ofcourse, if you deem that criticism does not constitute a contribution, and herefor I'm not a contributor to the blog or the projects but merely a 'guest', and guests should never give criticism - well. obviously you're right about deleting comments you don't like, then.

#1.1.1 Newsbyte on 2005-05-15 13:19 (Reply)
You have a rather warped view of freedom of speech if you think it makes it somehow immoral for me to edit my blog as I see fit. If you don't like the fact that I remove your flamebait comments, then set up your own damn blog, but please don't whine to me about freedom of speech. It is rather pathetic to compare yourself to people who are really denied their freedom of speech.

You can say what you want on your own blog or in other forums, but I am under no obligation to allow my blog to be your soapbox.
Just so we are clear, on the whole I am not interested in your views, and I am not alone in this. If you weren't so arrogant you might perhaps think about why you are the only person on the Freenet mailing lists that I have blacklisted.

Of course, based on past experience I am sure you will find a way to blame others for this, rather than looking at your own behaviour.

If you want a forum in which you can express your views, set up your own blog, but please don't expect me to provide you with a soapbox.

#1.1.1.1 Ian Clarke on 2005-05-15 14:43 (Reply)
"You have a rather warped view of freedom of speech if you think it makes it somehow immoral for me to edit my blog as I see fit."

Immoral? Where did I claim that? "Weird" is what I said, and that would possibly be hypocritical in a worst case scenario. You are very easy in calling posts flamebait, calling people pathetic, or giving lectures on behavioural attitudes - while not implementing them for your own.

All this has nothing do do with deleting comments that you dislike. The question rather is; where those comments correct or not. I'm willing to argument and show why they are, with actual examples (and I'm not talking about Freenet only, but also about dijer). If they were right, then it is not fair to shrug it of as 'flamebaits', and if you're not interested in any proof, at least you should acknowledge that.

While you can say a lot about me (which you do), at least I'm integer in what I say; that's why I retracted the post in which I said there wasn't a changelog for build 12. If it was only 'flamebait' like you call it, I would hardly have done that, now would I?

"You can say what you want on your own blog or in other forums, but I am under no obligation to allow my blog to be your soapbox."

This was not the point. I already said in my first paragraph that no one could force you into obliging to do anything, on your own blog. So you are argumenting something I didn't even contest. What I AM saying is, that claiming to be a stauch supporter of free speech, and at the same time censoring (by deleting) posts because you don't like them, is contradictory.

Do you have a right to delete them? No doubt. Can I create my own blog? No doubt. It doesn't change anything to the central point of being contradictory in regard to the pro-free-speech yet censoring comments you don't like, however.

"Just so we are clear, on the whole I am not interested in your views, and I
am not alone in this."

So you keep saying. But even if you're not interested in them, if you are truelly for free speech, you could not read them, instead of deleting it. Are you obliged to do that? Certainly not, but at least you would be more consistent with you free-speech stance.

"If you werent so arrogant you might perhaps think about why you are the only person on the Freenet mailing lists that I have blacklisted."

Frankly, this says more about you then about me.

"Of course, based on past experience I am sure you will find a way to blame others for this, rather than looking at your own behaviour."

Idem dito. You have nothing but avoided looking at your own behaviour, and blaming it on me. At least I'm openminded enough to let persons convey their thoughts, even with you. So, YOU blacklisted me, YOU cut of the emailaddy without prior warning, YOU delete posts because you don't like them. And it is all my fault, because poor you are just forced to do all those things.
Yeah, right.

I didn't do any of those things with you or your posts, and I wouldn't even if I could. Is this, because I think you are less arrogant then you find me? I doubt it. It's because, I too, am for free-speech, but at least I try to be consistent in it.

But hey, in your view I'm only flamebaiting again, and I'm all blaming it on others again, right? It's SO easy to dismiss anothers' viewpoint by resorting to blanket statements then by giving arguments, isn't it?

"If you want a forum in which you can express your views, set up your own blog, but please dont expect me to provide you with a soapbox."

Want? I expect a forum in which a person can give criticism certainly when comments are asked and the maintainer of the blog is someone who claims to be all for free speech, and even has a project dedicated to it.

And mind you, the major part of my posts were bugreports, which, aparently, you don't are particulary interested in, dixit yourself. And the fact that I say that Indy is the best project yet, compared to the others you made thusfar, in a good-working sense, you deem to be 'abuse of a guest' and 'flamebait'. Well, couldn't it be siply true? Or does your own bias towards me make my posts 'uninteresting' and 'flamebait' (even when containing bugreports), whether they are valid comments or not?

It seems clear the expectation about being allowed to make critical comments was unwarranted, but it does make it a valid point that you are being inconsistent, and at least you should acknowledge, then, that you only want positive comments.

I mean, c'mon: are you truelly, really of the opinion it is fair and integer to say in one post that all "feedback has been incredibly positive", while at the same time, you delete posts that are less positive? If you don't think there is something hypocritical about that, then, indeed, we seem to miss any common ground to have a rational discussion about the subject.

Now, of course I know Ian won't lay awake at night because of what I say - and frankly, I'm not laying awake of his comments neither - but, despite that, I find myself having difficulties accepting any form of hypocrisy, and, however one wants to turn it, Ian IS being hypocrite here. He claims he is not interested in what I say, yet, he corrects his blogentry accordingly when I point out an error. I mean, if one truely thinks I'm saying nothing worthwhile, then why change something that I point out? But all this is BS, because we both know my comments were not spam or the like; it clearly fell within the area of free speech. Since he claims he is a proponent of free speech (he actually created and manages a free speech P2P system after all, which he strongly defends with free-speech arguments), one would assume this is true as a matter of principle, and not merely a matter of convenience to get Freenet of the hook. So, if he really means it, and he is for free speech, then he should show that in exactly those areas where the free speech is dependent of him...like on his own blog.

Strange, then, that he defends his deletions and 'clean ups' with the argument that he's the boss on his blog, and he has the right to do it. Well, duh! What has 'right' got to do with it? Ofcourse he has the right! Might makes right, after all. And yes, he's the boss on his blog, which is why it is the more puzzling that he does not allow free speech on his own blog. His counterarguments about me not being a chinese dissident misses the point completely: you don't have to be chinese, nor a dissident, before one can use (or censor) free speech. From the moment you censor someone, then you are limiting his free speech, period. And yes, I can have free speech on another forum or my own blog, and maybe a chinese dissident can have free speech in solitary incarceration in his cell, but it's not about what the alternatives are, it's about the fact of being censored or not. THAT defines censorship and thus, free speech. Whether or not I can say it 'elsewhere', does not mean he's not limiting free speech on his own blog, even while claiming to be for free speech; hence the apparent contradiction between his claimed principles and his actions.

Thus, certainly, Ian has the right and the capability of censoring me on his blog...but it IS censoring. He should at least acknowledge that. And, what's more, once one agrees that he censors, on his own blog - where he has the power to do so or not - then one can not come to another conclusion that he's being hypocritical: claiming to be for free speech, yet censoring it himself, even when he has the option to act according to his own (claimed) free speech principles.

Sometimes, I doubt people will move forward in this respect, ever. But then I read some stuff, like you wrote, and I realise there are others who actually 'get it' what free speech actually stands for. :-)

Fingerprinting in Cyberspace

2005-05-23T14:25:00.000+02:00

Since I'm all for open debate, I want to assure those that have commented, that I will try to respond in a not too far future.:-)

But first, I want to talk about something that cought my eye not long ago.

In the eternal cat&mouse game of those trying to make computers or communication safe, secure and anonymous, and those that try to break it, the latter have just got a considerable powerful tool.

It seems that a student by the name of Tadayoshi Kohno of the university of California has developed a way to identify a computer, regardless whether it is NATted or behind a firewall, and regardless what IP that computer uses or shows.

While at first the usual reaction would be disbelief, it seems he actually has a working way of doing exactly what he claims. However, it should be noted, that what he discribes in his paper as 'unique identification' is, in the context used, NOT about the geographical position of the computer. Thus, it is not knowing where, exactly, the computer is, it is rather knowing which (among the many) computer it is. Some might think: "so, what, that is not much more information than can be gathered from the IP of a machine", but this is not competely true.

His system, basically, works with the so-called 'Clock-skew' and goes way beyond what is possible with server-fingering or portscans and the like. Rather, it is a remote way of doing forensic research, using forensic techniques. His particular technique is based on how the TCP protocol works when used on the internet. Tcp tries to make use of the Net as efficiently as possible (for its protocol), but this is not an easy task, because it has to 'guess' how many bytes can be send to a random receiver - but this is, obviously, also dependent on the load of the network. The way it does that, is by starting slow and then going faster and faster, untill it goes wrong; then it takes a step back. Another way it does that is by using rfc 1332, which consists of two parts, one of which is a time-stamp. It is exactly that time-stamp that is the weak spot used in the method of Yoshi.

When one sends a tcp-packet, this packet receives a timestamp, after which the receiver, when the request is acknowledged, resends the original timestamp. That way, the sender can easily determine the time it took for it to arrive at the receiver, and how long it took to get back (RTT). This system is used to determine how fast data can be transmitted, and is a normal practise of the internet-workings. However, the timestamps are based on the clock of the computer who sends it, and there is where the problem lies: *every* clock in *every* computer around the world has a deviance. This is called the clock-skew, and even when it is a minute difference, it is still detectable, and what's more, the exact aumount of time it deviates turns out to be as telling as a fingerprint, and thus one can identify the sender (at least his computer).

This has big implications, because, wherever one uses his laptop/PC when connecting to the Net, even when doing so in Japan and the next day in the USA, BOTH times it is recognised as being exactly the same computer. It also means that, whether you are behind a firewall or NAT, it STILL sends the timestamps with the ICP-packets, and thus, your computer can STILL be uniquely identified. Which can have enormous consequences for systems that rely on anonimity, because, when requesting something, even if it is routed through another computer, it is still possible to identify the exact computer that requested whatever it was that it requested. At least for a system relying on 'reasonable deniability', such as Freenet, this is a great potential threat: obviously, if your computer can be uniquely identified as the one that requested something, you have *no* deniability left whatsoever.

The way Freenet goes wrong

2005-05-15T19:39:00.000+02:00

Who says birds of a feather flock together? Maybe they do, but there can be a lot of picking, regardless.

Ian and me go back a long time, by now. More then 4 years ago, I began a more active involvement in his Freenet-project; back then the Big New Hot Thing of the time in cyberspace. While, at first, things went along pretty well, our mutual understanding deteriorated to the point where I am now blacklisted on his emaillist - an unicum, according to himself.

The reasons are diverse; he blames it on arrogance; I do the same. Only we have eachother posts' in mind. :-) We are probably both guilty; Ians' ego is as stuborn as mine, and sometimes personalities (or ego's) just don't get along. One would think that, me and him, both libertarian minded, would get along just fine, but the contrary is true; we're too much alike. The difference being, he manages his OSS projects in the cathedral way - instead of the bazaar way, and having been a central application manager myself, I can see how he mismanages most of the projects in a terrible way. He, ofcourse, has another opinion, and since I'm not a coder, he finds all what I say of little interest - so he has claimed himself. This attitude is pervasive and widespread, which, IMHO, is one of the reasons Freenet has went nowhere, even after 5 years of development.

Obviously, Ian disagrees. He cites it's novel and complex as the reasons...but that doesn't explain why there isn't more effort to involve people, why so many have thrown Freenet in the bin and went to I2P, which, strangely enough *does* manage to get considerable leaps in usability. AND in a fraction of the time that Freenet took to come up with a largely defunct network - even though for years Freenet has a full-time payed coder, where I2P has to manage with what volunteers can do in their spare time. The 'complexity of the code' has nothing to do with how one manages projects on the human-management level, especially OSS projects; and if, like Ian does, you do not deem any input comming from a non-coder as being worth your attention, then there is something wrong with how you regard contributions. If you think only code matters, then you fail to realise the potential every person can give to a project.

I'll take myself as an example, since I know that case best ;-). I am not a coder (unless in a very minor way with js), and I have said so from the start. Yet, of all the non-coders, I dare say I have done the most: I have sponsored and donated to Freenet myself, I have searched and found new additional sponsors for Freenet, I have helped maintain and update the site, I have offered to help with showing a more transparent way concerning the finances of the project (it's financed by the public, after all, as a non-profit org. At the end - you guessed it - it was ultimately denied), I have erected the freenethelp-site (and given it webspace, hosting and maintainance for free) which is meant to help users of Freenet, I have run several nodes and inserted content, etc.

Does all this mean anything in the eyes of the founder of Freenet? Well, apparently not much. This was more then obvious when I posted a critical suggestion or comment. It is true; after a while, I and others began to lose patience, and I posted several posts that were less then diplomatic - but I really can't feel much remorse, because I only react to people as they react to me. At least I wasn't hypocritcally lecturing anyone about how one should behave, while disregarding it myself. Ian apparently fails to realise, that comments with criticism are wortwhile too, and should be considered contributions, not attacks - even when, through his own fault of continious disdain of non-coder input, some posted with a lot of sarcasm at the end (including myself, I confess). But ofcourse, no doubt Ian sees this in a whole other light, so I'll give some examples:

I and others have numerous times suggested things that most would see as obviously welcome. An example is: a search-engine. One has to be blind and stupid not to realise this is one of the major disadvantages of Freenet: it has no capability to search. While it was clear that a true searchengine was not for the forseable future, someone with a feeling for what the public wants could have decided to make a temporary one. That someone wasn't Ian. Every suggestion was deemed unacceptable, if not 'idiotic'. His reasoning was like: it's not good enough. A client-based js searchengine? No way, josé! He'd rather have nothing then a temporary solution. And at the end, he had exactly that: nothing.

Numerous other times have followed the same pattern: making his freenet-finances more transparent? Not necessary. Creating TUKs or other ways of having permanent yet updated freesites, without having to go through the hassle of inserting them every 24 hours? Not needed. Creating a testnetwork so we could actually have a chance of making progress in defining the underlying routing/loadbalance problems? A waste of time. Providing a bit more news or feedback to the users/sponsors/etc so that you create a sense of involvement and direction, instead of the impression everthing lies dead in the water? We have more important things to do! (untill users and sponsors don't donate enough money anymore, then suddenly it becomes important, and the begging begins). Try to involve others more in the project, even coding wise?

There have been numerous suggestions from me and others about this in the past, but somehow, it's never deemed worth a response. Yet, other, similar projects are more open and flexible, and at least give it a try: http://dev.i2p.net/pipermail/i2p/2005-May/000727.html If I2P can do it, why can't we?

But; offering bounties for help in some areas of Freenet-coding? Hell no! Making better documented specs, so coders that weren't here from the start have a fair chance of understanding the code before they die of old age? Who cares!

It is exactly that sort of pervasive we-do-as-we-like-and-screw-the-rest mentality that destroys that what is precisely the strongest asset and driving force of many OSS. Ian fails to see this, alas. Does it surprise anyone, that Freenet, after years of development is, where it was 5 years ago, in a practical-usability sense?

Sure, numerous technical things have changed, and new features and possibilities and routingmechanisms have been touted, again and again, as the solution for a working Freenet-network. But, at the end, we still have a crappy network with little content to be found, where it takes days to get connected, and where it is virtually impossible to get any of ten randomly chosen freesites (which was proven by me with factual data; the only way to do it, because it was, time and again, refuted that freenet was working like crap as I said it was. One can see this data in the archives of the mailists; it comes right after the episode where Ian revoked my freenet-emailaddress, because my critical attitude to the current development-proces was aparently not to his likings).

There is also a grand self-delusion going on, with Ian, and even with Toad, where they think they actually have a GOOD working network. I don't know how this is possible. Maybe they base themselves wrongly on their own experiences with their optimised nodes, that are running 24/24, 7/7 and act as seednodes. Or maybe they just don't want to realise what most joe doe users (and slashdotters) already have realised and said in their posts: that Freenet, while a good idea, just sucks, currently.

It is with pain in my heart that I have to agree with that, because I really like the project as a concept, and I have invested much time and money and effort in it - even when it is not appreciated by the Higher Gods. In fact, if I hear someone else speak negatively about freenet, I have the reaction to defend it too - so it's not like I don't understand Ians' irrational attitude towards criticism, when you view that as an attack. But, one can not deny it any longer: Freenet has gone nowhere, in a practical joe-doe-can-use-it sense. After 5 years, we have nothing to show for it, and I largely blame the management - and the unwillingness to listen to input from others - for it.

Now, once again, a decision has been made (from the 'top' down, as usual) to completely revamp Freenet, once again. Will it be any better now? Not if things don't change management-wise, and attitude-wise, but Ian&co doesn't seem inclined to try another approach. Version 0.7! All those wonderful ideas! But some already suck, like making *two* networks, one open and one darknet with a Gmail-like invite-only system (and insanly presumed to be as succesful), instead of just using a hybrid, like I and others have suggested, and which makes the most sense to everyone exept a few Higher Gods. So, one can already see where this will be going, one bad development-decision after another; to another 4 years of haphazard-development, with not much to show for at the end in a pragmatical sense, again. After months of being dead in the water - apart from some simulations - we are already feeling a weird deja-vue, even before actual coding has began.

But then again, I doubt anything will change in that regard: if you can't code, your viewpoints aren't worth considering, and thus, neither will this blogcomment. Some people just never learn, and the project suffers for it. I've made this blog-entry with the specific hope it would awaken at least some of the people who have the most say in the project, and maybe, finally, make a drastic change in the way things are done, and to help the project out of it's eternal loophole where it has been meandering these last 5 years. In reality, ofcourse, it's quite possible I simply will get banned form the maillist alltogether. Don't listen to the message; kill the messenger: that always has been the prefered way of dealing with unpleasant news, by some - to their own detriment, ultimately.

Outlawing Books

2005-05-01T14:25:00.000+02:00

This is a copy of a post I made some time ago, but still is worth mentionning because it directly relates to free speech, of which, you will notice, I am a stark proponent in the finest (cough) libertarian sense :

Well, this may be a bit off topic, but what the heck. I've just been out with some friends, and, as always when we get moderately drunk, we talked about politics, religion, philosophy etc. (when we are real drunk or when no babes are present, we usually talk about sex ;-)

Well, anyhow, being all european, and all friends (birds of a feather) we fully agreed on a lot of topics. Israel, Iraq, USA, etc...opinions didn't differ much there. But then it came to a typical european concept of free speech, which, I presume, may strike USA-citizens as a bit weird. While, seen at large, we have the same concept of free speech as in the USA, this opinion, curiously, always seem to shift to a more restricted idea of free speech when it concerns things as racism. In this respect (one of the few, I might add), I think the usa concept of it is much more honest and fair. This has undoubtably to do with our historic heritage, notably WWII.

I was argumenting that revisionistic books, as an expression of an opinion, should be allowed. Thus, not agreeing with the law(s) in most euro-countries, where such books are forbidden. To my astonishment, many of my friends agreed with this censorship, however. This is something I do not understand; you CAN NOT claim to be for free speech and expression of opinion, and then say "exept when it's *that* opinion". Allowing free speech only if you agree with it, but forbid it when you totally disagree with it, is not allowing free speech at all. I've tried to argument it, but it just didn't seem to get through to them; they started with the premise that it's wrong, and therefor it should be forbidden, whatever. The fact that this leads to hypocrytical contradictions was something they ignored too. One said: 'it's a fact, and thus it shouldn't be disputed' another said 'it hurts the jews'...but, are that, on itself, enough reasons to forbid an opinion? Is there a 'fact' so absolute, it can't be disputed? Can't anyone feel hurt be an opinion of another dude, and should we thus, forbid everything that someone claims is hurting their feelings?

These arguments do not make any sense, and what's more, to forbid an opinion is EXACTLY what ultra-right wing or despotic governments would do with the opinions that my friends (and I myself) hold dear; that of being non-racist, etc. The difference is, they start with the presumtion that they (the idea they have about it) are right, and thus oposing views can be forbidden, while I think people are allowed to have racist opinions, even when I totally disagree with them... After all, that is EXACTLY what a dictator (or ultra-right-winged-government) would do, if he ever got the power: claim something is a 'fact' and forbid oposing views. The REAL difference, thus, between a democracy and a dictatorship is that that the one alows (or should allow) diffirent opinions, while the other does not. Thus, in conclusion, this is a treat, not of democraccy, but of a dictatorship, and unworthy to be used in a democracy, IMHO. It also shows that laws are not always justified, and, again IMHO, should not ALWAYS be regarded as an absolutism, something that should be followed blindly. (Of course, it happens to be my opinion that revisionists are telling crap too, but the point is I think they have a right to express that opinion).

I got a bit worked up about it, really, because, after all, it restricts other people, because of the mere opinion of others, who think they have the right to forbid it (and have the power - which is the dangerous part, because; what if the power shifts?). Why am I writing all this? Well, because it made it clear to me again, why I'm doing all this trouble for a project such as Freenet. Sometimes, with all the tech babble and the problems and all that, I ask myself why I'm doing all this. And I guess, this is the answer. I'm doing this, because everyone has a right to express his opinion, and I can't stand it that others would try to impose their will on others, even with the best of intentions (as with my friends).

This project (Freenet) has the ultimate potential: it deprives people, and, as an extention, governments, of the *power* to impose their will/censorship on others. Are people telling crap? Well, make something that debunks what they say, point. But don't forbid it, because that's exactly what THEY would do if they are in power.

Yes, it's the potential of making the power that the government (and corporations, and, yes, my friends) seem to think they have the perogative of, to become totally obsolete, that made me interested in Freenet. With a system as Freenet (when it will be fully working ;-), they can shout and do all they want, my ideal of a free society with a free flow of opinions will be there (at least in cyberspace). There might be drawbacks, as with any technology (and it's consequences), but all by all, it's worth it.

Freedom of Speech; the paradigm (1)

2005-04-30T10:27:00.000+02:00

- why everyone is for it, *exept* if... [fill in a reason] -

Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that prohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.

Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones' own views, or else you have *no* freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of free speech; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid some speech they don't agree with and which may offend some ethnic or other group.

- Newsbyte

Exactly this topic was the focuspoint of a debate I had on slashdot, which begins like this:

"Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries."

Consistency should not be a goal on its own, or you get totalitarian situations. And I don't know whether it's more fair.

As they say: your rights end where someone else's rights begin. IMHO, inciting people to ignore this rule as far as certain groups of people are concerned can be seen as a first step to abandon that rule (at least in practice; in theory, that rule may still hold, but what use is it if it's largely ignored?), just like others argue that banning this kind of speech is (a first step towards)/(the same as) banning all free speech.

It's all a matter of trade-offs, and which trade-off you are more likely to accept depends a lot on history I think. I know I much prefer the European to the US system, but maybe unconsciously that is because my grandfather was captured as soldier and put on a train to a concentration camp? (although he managed to escape from the train, fortunately, or I wouldn't be here)

- Halo1

We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent.Inconsistent laws lead to hypocritical laws (where, for instance, a law aplies to a white man differently then for a black man), and hypocritical laws inherently breed unfairness.Totalitarian states do not depend on the consistency of the laws, rather on the nature of those laws.

If laws induce and promote more freedom, even when being consistent, it is doubtfull it will lead to a totalitarian state where inconsistent laws wouldn't.I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws.

"We disagree on the first paragraph already, then. I think laws SHOULD be consistent, and it should be a goal to make them consistent."

Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law. Why? Because there are also fundamental differences with other mammals. The same thing can be argued about hate speech and other speech.

"I do understand your last point, and I certainly can understand your feelings in the matter, but I don't think the past should keep us from making rational and consistent laws."

I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history. No single human can be purely objective.

"Of course laws should generally be consistent, but consistency itself should not be a goal on its own, because that leads to absurdity. For example, all humans are mammals, yet we treat them differently than other mammals in the law."

I think you are confusing 'consistency' with 'generalisation' a bit.

"I could similarly argue that the fear that a ban on hate speech will automatically lead to a ban on all free speech is also an irrational fear which is held by many (mainly American) people, probably due to their history."

That can be, but I wasn't argumenting it out of that reason (fear). In fact, it would fail to explain why, embedded in the history of europe, I would agree with them, especially as I'm rather anti-USA (even if I say so myself ;-). I doubt if it wasn't for the fact that I can see it truelly *is* more of a rational argumentation, I would ever have supported their view.

But, despite my dislikings and their fear as possible (sub)reason, I think they are right, on this particular issue, for the reasons I mentionned in above posts.Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden.

I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them.So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?

Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all.

It's not even meant to exclude those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech.

The (in)consistency does not lay in the premisse one takes on that, however, but rather in reversing (and implementing) the exact same reasoning, but then to oneself. If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then? In both cases it would be 'hate speech' (as defined by law)...thus where would that leave you, with your above reasoning? Unless you accept that, in that case, they are fully entitled to forbid anti-racism speech too, you would be higly hypocritical.

"Also, even on itself your argument sounds a bit contradictory. If you ban 'hate speech' you already banned some form of speech, and then it becomes rather irrelevant if there is no reason to fear that 'all' speech will be forbidden."

"Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

"I mean, if the government of china forbids speech that speaks negative about them, it does not mean they will forbid 'all' free speech; in fact, it's quite reasonably to assume they will always allow free speech that will speak positive about them."

As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.

"So, it could be deemed 'irrational', following your reasoning, that the chinese would held the believe that 'all' free speech would end. Yet, why would almost anyone (including you, presumably), see this as an infringement of free speech nonetheless?"

Because hate speech is something entirely different.

"Because, ultimately, free speech is not purely meant for those opinions that you agree with, or else you don't have free speech at all. It's not even meant to exclude those opinions you really, really, *really* do not agree with, and think they are vile, irrational, repugnant, etc....because, then again, you don't have free speech."

It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with opinions, it's much more fundamental then that.

"If the ultra-right ever came to a political majority, and would (make laws that) deem anti-racism and critique on their policy as being hateful or offensive... would you think it were a good argument that you couldn't speak out against racism because, then?"

If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you. They'll brand you a terrorist, dangerous to the public/state, whatever. It's very naive to think that absolute free speech will somehow protect you from that, just like thinking that the right bear arms can protect you from the government.

And I hope you will not try to take this argument to absurdum and claim that you can use this argument to justify all kinds of limitations to public freedom, because that's not true and not what I mean. I simply mean that you cannot use this argument to justify allowing hate speech, because it's bogus. On the one hand it won't help you one bit against an extremist government, and on the other hand you get hate speech on top of it.

And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need. If you think the need for absolute free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than the fact that hate speech can be free spread, then you keep hate speech legal. Otherwise you don't. In Europe (most?) governments chose for the latter option, in the US they chose the former.

""Some form of speech" is always banned, like the age-old example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre."

LOL...I KNEW you were going to come up with that ;-) I almost was going to write about it even on beforhand, but I figured it would take me too far...yet, it seems I'll have to anyways, after all.

The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech.The argument in the analogy is therefor unvalid, and I'm rather amused by it popping up like clockwork, as a counterargument to 'absolute' freedom of speech; it is, in fact, not really a matter of free speech.

"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common."

No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech. I do not agree that the difference is fundamental, and even if I would, it would still not entitle you to the conclusion it should be inherently treated differently. Racist claim the color of one's skin is a fundamental difference too: could they thus, muffle some form of free speech?

I hope you get my point: your starting premise is already doubtfull. If the chinese government thinks the stability of the state and government is 'fundamental', following your reasoning, it can treat attacks (even as speech) on the government and state differently from any other speech.

You see? Once again, there is no difference in reasoning.You simply take your opinion as 'fundamental' while it is not. There is no reason, on itself, why calling for taking away rights that some call fundamental, would entitle anyone to muffle up free speech any more then any other person that thinks calling to take away the rights of a government is a fundamental difference in regard to other forms of speech.

"Because hate speech is something entirely different."

No, it's claimed to be entirely different. As I've said, the chinese government can well be of the opinion, that speech against the government is 'entirely different' then the rest of free speech.

Unless you claim universalism on the matter - which would be odd, because if it were truelly universal, the USA wouldn't allow said 'hate speech'. Yet, seen that it has a whole other viewpoint on it, one can hardly claim it's universal or fundamental.

"If a government wants to suppress its people, having absolute free speech will not help you."

I agree, but that was not my point. It's not whether it would protect me from a totalitarian regime or not, but simply the question if you would agree with the reasoning, *then*. If you don't, then the reasoning you used has no validity (if you don't want to be hypocritical, that is).

And while you claim I cannot use this, I'm inclined to use it anyway :-): a totalitarian regime could forbid whatever speech or freedom it (dis)liked, if it had full power and control. This is not an argument against allowing true free speech, while it still would be a distinctive characteristic that would devide closeminded totalitarian governments from openminded democracies.

"And this again leads to the "consistency" argument: laws are not designed with the sole goal of being consistent, but because of some social or economic need."

That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice.

And ultimately, laws should above all consider if they are just, not if they fill a social or economical need.Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just. So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself. If laws become absurd because of it being consistent, then there is something wrong with the law, not the consistency. It may be, for instance, that the law is too much generalising (as in you mammal example); in that case, one should adapt the law and refine it, not make it inconsistent.

"The 'yelling fire in a theatre' is not pure speech, as it does not convey any thoughts, but rather ellicits an immediate (panic-)response. This can be easily shown by the fact that sounding a fire-alarm will have the exact same effect; yet one can hardly argument a fire-alarm is exercising free speech."

Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is. Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it.

"As I explained before, the big difference between hate speech and all other forms of speech (including criticising a government), is that it calls for taking away other people's fundamental rights simply because they have an arbitrary characteristic in common.

No, it's making an artificial difference, and then claiming it is distinctive and 'grave' enough to treat it differently from other speech."

No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that.

"That is correct, and that's what's wrong with the current legal system. :-) I would argue that there is no inherent dichotomy between the two, and, if (a) law(s) can't be consistent without still having a beneficial influence on the social or economic need, then that social or economic is doubtfull to be in accordance with justice."

It simply depends what you want to be consistent with. You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law. We only have laws because there is a society and to keep that society functioning.

You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way. Humans are not perfectly predictable or without exceptions, so the law can't be that way either... unless you are in a totalitarian system, where people are supposed to adapt to the needs of the law/those in power, instead of that the laws are adapted to the needs of society.

"Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just."

This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust.
So, in a way, making laws consistent is (or at least should be) a goal, and your fear that they will become absurd because of that is unvalid, because it's not the consistency that makes it absurd, but the (content of) the/some laws itself. Law can also become absurd as a consequence of striving for consistency without taking into account why exactly there was/is an inconsistency in the first place. Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency.

Consistency is not the highway to heaven. It's a good (and important) guide when making laws, but e.g. the whole debate about the directive on software patents in Europe (where they also want to treat "inventions in all fields of technology" in a consistent way) shows that if you treat it as a goal of its own, you miss a whole lot of other important stuff.

"Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is."

;-)

I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.

"Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it."

Note, however, that in many countries it isn't forbidden to say it on itself, it's just that you have to prove it afterwards, if you are sued. Unless clear harm can be demonstrated, as a *direct* result of the 'slander/libel' (and it's demonstrated to be just that), I would do away with those laws too. (Well, actually adapt them, thus). It's noteworthy that on this issue too, many countries have a far more tolerant policy then in our country, so there is nothing fundamental about it.

"No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food, ...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that."

I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too.

There are dictators and right-wingers enough that have a whole other opinion of basic rights. So saying "it should be so, because it is fundamental", is nothing more then saying "it should be so, because in my opinion, it is a fundamental right". But then, we can go back to my example of the chinese government, and if that is of the opinion that the stability of the state is a 'fundamental right', then you can not argument against it. You may agree to it being a basic right or not, but that has no bearing on their opinion of it. So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.

Many would disagree with that, however, making the reasoning and application hypocrite.If, however, one is of the opinion that free speech should be absolute, then you must agree that another person can make use of that absolute free speech too.

Well, I agree another person can use that. :-)

So, you see, consistency DOES have an intrinsic value.

"You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law."

Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other. I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive. If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.I sometimes feel that people think 'generalistation' and 'consistency' are the same things, while they are not, at all. Laws may be bad because they are (over)generalising, NOT because they are consistent.

Take you example of "all mamals should be treated equal' and then saying; you can't be consistent, because you treat animals different then humans. Well, yes, but is it a bad law because it's not consistent, or is it a bad law, bacause it was generalising? If you accept the law (in its content), then, yes, you should treat all mamals equal, and other laws should reflect that, and be consistent with that. If, however, you refine the law and say 'all humans have to be treated equally', then laws that treat animals diferently, are no longer inconsistent.

So, it is not the fault of consistency that a law is bad or good, rather it's the law itself. But if you deem a law to be 'right', then you have to be consistent in it, or you'll create unjustice and unfairness.

"You can have great theoretical ideas of how to make an idealised "clean and pure" juridical system, but society does not work that way."

That's why I said: "Now, I'm fully aware that that isn't the way it's always done, but that does not mean we should not strive to continiously make them more consistent and just."

;-)

"This again depends on what you consider just (another quite subjective term). Some people find it just that rich people pay along to help cater for the poorer, others think this is very unjust. "

'Just' is determined by people themselves, but they *should* indeed remain consistent, if they want to improve on their own 'justice'. If people think rich people should cater the poor, then they should do so, and those that think they don't, should not. As long as they remain consistent, you can not say one group of people is more 'unjust' then the other. If, however, they think they should, but they themselves don't (and vice versa), they are being inconsistent, and, even in their own worldview, unjust.

"Although this is by no means always the case, it's quite possible that there was a very good reason for an inconsistency."

No. The only reason why there are inconsistencies, is because laws are intrinsically bad (=they have contradictions within themselves), because they are elitist (=not followed by the populace, or against human nature), (over)generalising, or because they are rooted in irrational behaviour or bias. Unless one of those reasons is deemed 'a very good reason', I would refute that claim, thus.

It is true that laws can become absurd when they are followed consistently, but only because those laws fail in one of the above mentioned examples in the first place.

"I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before."

You can easily find out who I am by searching for my real name. And the country I live in can also be found from my email address. Whether we mailed or not, I don't know.

"I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too"

Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly [un.org]. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative.

"So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right."

As I said, this is not merely about my opinion. And article 30 of the above mentioned declaration nicely illustrates how racism and other hate speech goes against it, even though it also demands freedom of opinion and expression. And yet this document is quite consistent: it aims for protecting people, and therefore includes a clause for preventing abuse of one provision to get around another one. Both article 19 and article 30 are consistent with that goal, regardless of how one article may impose exceptions on the other.

"Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other."

I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post.

"I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive."

Not in all cases, but I place more value on being good for society/economy than on being consistent. If you can combine the two: more power to you. But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency.

"If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent."

Maybe all laws are bad and you are right. Before I accept that, I would like to see your proposal for a new law system that is entirely consistent without any exceptions whatsoever, and under which a free society could flourish. Certainly, the current laws are not perfect. But I do not believe all problems can be solved by having only consistent laws, nor am I sure that society as a whole would suddenly be that much better of if we only had purely consistent laws. I mean, theoretically it sounds nice, but I'm not sure how it would work out in practice.

If it's at all possible, you'll probably end up with a lot more laws than we now have, each for their extremely limited field without exceptions, so that the system would probably become a lot more complex as it is now. And special cases you didn't think of will probably always pop up, so you'll almost endlessly keep refactoring your laws.

Just like in programing you should not refactor endlessly, you have to draw a line somewhere: now it's been simplified enough, what still doesn't fit will be handled by special cases.

"Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative."

No, I'm only saying that when I actually knew you were going to say that, and this time, I didn't knew. I did went over with my thoughts before, however.Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'.

I agree, as an individual, with the priciple(s) and with most 'basic rights' as described, but that is something else. What it boils down too, is that it represents the greatest common nominator that the majority of people held as an opinion (and agreed to) of what constitutes a basic right. I am quite sure they are thought of, quite extensively, by the best experts there are...but it still represents an opinion, even though a (presumed) generally accepted one.

Which brings us back to what I said about a country: while 'the majority' in an european country may consider the current 'racism laws' a good thing, it does not make it a universal or fundamental thing. When the majority would shift to right-wingers, the same reasoning could be applied by them to muffle our free speech up - and I mean not in the 'but they could do it anyways', but in the 'remaining within the same reasoning' way.

You counter that by argumenting it's not the same, because it's (not) about a human right. But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.

So, 'basic human rights' are maybe deemed basic by most in our timeframe, but they certainly are not 'universal' in the strict sense. If the islam had dominated the world in the 20iest and 21st century, our basic human rights would probably be based on the teachings of the shariat, and might include some things that you wouldn't deem a basic human right.Ultimately, ALL rights are based on opinions.

"As I said, this is not merely about my opinion.[...]"

No, and I'm not alone with my opinion neither; but that doesn't amount to anything. Whether you or I are alone with our opinion or not; it still is an opinion.

Besides, what should china care if some article does not find the stabibilty of the state as fundamental, if they do? I mean, if a christian or islamic figure begins to site paragraphs out of the bible or koran, to show you what rights you have and what not, would you feel compelled to abide by it?Only if you deem those paragraphs and books to be right (or authorative) for yourself.

I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll assume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.Well, that just proves my point, actually. I do not agree with that, then. Nor does the USA, in majority. And if the majority of the world, including those experts that thought so long about it, would see it the same way...well, what then? Article 30 would be scrapped or adapted, period. The authority it has is not carved in stone, nor is it truelly universal (meaning, of all places and times), it's only power is that which it has and is bestowed upon by people whome accept it.

"I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post."

You make, again, the mistake of thinking that consistency and a general rule-of-thumb are somehow intertwined. Being consistent can be catered to specific fields, AND to general area's, as long as, there too, it is being *used* consistently. I thought I made that clear in my example, that was in fact, yours, with the mammals. There is nothing impossible with making such a law consistent, but whether or not you want that law to be implemented (and that depends on the feasability of what you want to reach with that law).

"But one should never sacrifice society in favour of consistency."
There's the perceived dichotomy again. :-)

Society would adapt, as it always does, and not be destroyed or other doomthingies by more consistency in its laws. In fact, to some extend I would claim we partly DO sacrifice (at least in terms of justice) society because of inconsistencies.But I think we basically disagree on this issue.

Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better. Both our opinions are, in a certain respect, worth equally as much (as an opinion, that is).

Only, yours could impose restrictions upon people, while my viewpoint will allow free speech for everyone. (btw, when I say 'you' I don't mean you personnally ;-)

"Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'. "

Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason.

"But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today. "

Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion.

The laws that rule a society are per definition conventions that are agreed upon. And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent. I really don't understand why you seem to think this perceived consistency is pretty much the most important thing and why all the rest is hypocrite. I'm not even convinced that the banning of hate speech as it is done in e.g. de Universal Declaration of Human Rights is somehow inconsistent with at the same time guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression in the first place.

Social sciences simply don't work with pure logic, strict consistency etc. There are a bunch of people who argue and then get a general consensus, based on historic background etc (as I remarked in one of my first messages afaik). You cannot approach it from a purely rational point, because then you are arguing in the void and based on false premises (namely that social law is or should be created out of nothing based on some consistent rules of logic).

You start from society, make some rules and only then try to get them consistent while still meaning the same thing (and if you can do that: wow, fantastic, great!). Forcing society into a different ruleset simply because you want consistent rules (and before you reply with the same thing again: no, I do not think that consistency per definition leads to different rules) because you are convinced that will make a better new world for all without any backup for that: no, thank you.

Changing the world or society does not work like that.

"I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement."

Strange, I just tried it again and it works fine here. Anyway, here's article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

And here's article 30:
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. It does not say anything about hate speech, it just forbids the use of any rights granted by the declaration to be used for attempts to destroy other people's rights stemming from that declaration.

"Following your reasoning, the project I'm working on (Freenet) has the potential of 'sacrificing' society, where I see it as a great oportunity for society to renew itself and become something better."

I guess you mean the fact that it can be used to anonymously spread hate speech? So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies. Technology has exactly nothing to do with this debate as far as I'm concerned.

Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion. Maybe you need such a justification for yourself, maybe you don't, but I don't really care for that kind of meta-hippy talk.

Only, yours could impose restrictions upon people, while my viewpoint will allow free speech for everyone. And that is, to use a favorite phrasing of yours, a false premise. Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech. It's not as black and white as you try to paint it.

"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation)."

That's very true, and that's what I've been trying to convey. Whether you call it universal or not, it is not. Something that is truelly universal would be something that can be found back in any time, in any society. There are some examples which may be eligible, but 'hate speech' is not one of them.

It is, therefor, not universal, nor fundamental (or basic).Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.

"And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent."

Ofcourse they should be debated on their merrits...but the merrits are also derived from the fact if they are consistent or not. That's what I've been saying: 'bad' laws are not bad because of the consistency, they are bad because of their content. If you see inconsistencies, it's an indicator that something is wrong with the law.

"So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies."

Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.

"Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion."

They are as weak or as strong as saying that it will sacrifice society. :-)

"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech."

Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions. To claim speech should be forbidden when it offends a perceived basic right, or even a mere feeling of offense, like some people are claiming, is ridiculous. Your claim is , in essence, not correct: unfettered hate speech, as long as it remains speech, does NOT actually restrict rights of people. Freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to agree with it, to listen to it, to act on it, etc. Clairly, the level of restriction, even if you would take it there is one, is far less then the restriction imposed by racism-laws that plainly forbid certain forms of speech.

One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the free speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group.

"Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal."

Your perceived consistency does not make social positions any stronger. Social laws grow out of society, not out of some perceived consistency in logic.

"Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net. "

I think you're giving yourself too much credit. Anonymous proxies, open news servers, freebie websites... Once something is out on the Internet, you already cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Just ask the MPAA how successful they were of getting DeCSS wiped from the Internet. You may make it even more easy, but there are no fundamental changes.

"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech. Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions."

That's the theory, yes. But you can't be so naive to think that whatever you say has no consequences at all. Just like yelling fire --even though it may not be pure speech-- also has consequences, and is banned for those consequences; you are claiming that the consequences can never be so bad that it can be used as justification to prohibit some kind of speech. Fine, that may be your opinion. But calling everyone who thinks that is not the case "a hypocrite" is not very convincing to support your stance.

The line for me is exactly how article 30 of the UDHR described it. You can have your free speech, as long as you do not try to use it to limit other people's basic rights. You can of course keep arguing out of the void that there is some ultimate principle somewhere out there that states that allowing all free speech is always more consistent than not (regardless of how this may be inconsistent with your goal of getting a well functioning society and of how you can argue based on the past in which ways exactly this can happen), and that regardless what kind of arguments I bring in, you will not accept any kind of limitation to that because you do not accept that social laws with a reason can overrule this ultimate principle of truth, but then please say so.

This is getting very tiring and totally unproductive as far as I'm concerned, since you discard all arguments with "everything is an opinion". I have news for you: that's exactly how societies come to their rules, and that is exactly the justification that is needed. Rules are made by society according to a society's opinion. You may not find this consistent, logical, pure or basic in anyway, but that's per definition what a society is: "The relationship of men to one another when associated in any way; companionship; fellowship; company".

The rules that govern those relations are consequentially made by society as well. You may not like those rules, but if you try to impose other rules thinking that you know it better, then you get situations like Mao in China etc. I do not know of any place in the world where rules were imposed on society with the result that society suddenly functioned a whole lot better. Even in the French revolution, it was society that chose the new rules.

So society can change, and so can the rules. It's indeed even possible that one day the UDHR will be gone. But until you give any social reason as to why the rules in that declaration are somehow harming society as a whole, I don't think you have any ground to discard them as "merely opinions of no value". Simply saying "They are not basic rights. Period." is too easy a cop out, and I'm not sure why you want to "debate" with people like that (except to wear them out, maybe).

You have your dogmatic position and are not accepting any arguments against it, because your postion is not based on anything (not because you haven't thought about it, but because there simply are no basics according to you, only opinions of no value and some principle of consistency that totally ignores the social reality), so they can also not be shown wrong in your view.

One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the fre speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group. Yeah, you try to organise a debate between the KKK and the Black Panthers. Is it really so hard to understand that hate speech has absolutely nothing to do with debate? If anything, it prevents debates, because it's intended exactly to avoid debates, to stop people thinking about something and to get them so agitated to make sure they won't think any further about it.

Anyway, this will be the last message I will post in this thread. I can just as well argue with a mathematician about whether it really is possible to draw a straight line between any two points, and only one at that [bymath.com]. If you do not want to accept that social rules should come from society (and that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences) because then they aren't necessarily "basic" or "consistent in your view, then that is it I guess.

It is becoming tiresome, indeed. While you perceive my posts as being dogmatic and not open to arguments, I rather see yours as increasingly so. I try to give arguments and counterarguments in every post, while you respond hardly to any of my questions or points.You say it's dogmatic that I regard rights, including 'basic human rights' as written down statements that express an opinion.

Well, then YOU answer it: do you think those rights do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature?

If they are, indeed, opinions, then you have to acknowledge that those opinions can change, agreed with that?

Well, then, I'll repeat my question:In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*.

My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.

If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.

If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.

You are on your high horse, claiming I said you are a hypocrite, while I never did, which you would have noticed, if you read my posts carefully.Whether you are hypocrite or not, fully depends on you, and your stance and some few variables, such as: do you accept that opinions, laws and rights can change? Do you think 'basic human rights' do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature? Do you agree that you are bound by your OWN reasoning, even if that very same reasoning is, or would be, used to forbid you (when ultra-right would become the majority, for instance) to speak something you feel very strongly about, such as anti-racist speech?

Depending on these questions, you could or could not be a hypocrite, that is all I said and am saying.

You speak of consequences, but you know as well as I do, that people are responsible for their OWN deeds and actions. There has never been established a direct correlation, let alone a causality, between mere speech (not incitement or your fire-alarm example, thus) of one person, and the actions of others. Even in europe, courts have ruled that guilt-by-proxy in such a matter is not valid, and with reason. If you are not only going to hold the persons responsible that DO the illegal things, but also the persons who *might* have had an influence on their behaviour, even when it is only speech, then one can start suing everybody, really.

If courts would rule differently, then every media, including books and movies, that depicted or conveyed illegal or violent acts, could be forbidden, because it might lead to some people doing something that is illegal or damaging to somebody else. Luckily, people are deemed guilty for their actions, not their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts on themselves (at least in the USA). For the latter, however, suddenly europe makes an exeption when it comes to 'racist speech', without giving any substantial reasons why this would merrit such a peculiar treatement.

Oh, yes, because it is against a 'basic right'...which isn't basic, but rather an opinion in the first place, but, even if it were, it does still not explain why 'racist speech' should be forbidden, while others are not. I mean...there are other 'basic human rights', no? Why isn't it forbidden to speak against those, then? 'Right of education' is one of them, I believe. Well, now, if I make a campaign, claiming kids should not get an education, I'm going against a 'basic right' too, right? And it might hurt kids too. Some dudes could even close or burn down schools, after hearing me speak.

So...why am I not forbidden to speak that?

Because, the reason given is bogus. It's not about it being a basic right or not, as you well know. The reason why 'racist speech' is forbidden, but all the rest not, even if it equally goes against 'basic human rights' is because europe is still holding itself hostage to the past. Nazism-history has given us a trauma which we still can't get rid off, and it keeps us chained in this sort of irrational behaviour and law-making, especially in this particular context.

THAT is the reason why only 'racist speech' is forbidden here, and nothing else, even if other speech goes against other 'basic human rights'.

That's why we try to forbid free speech in that context; in an attempt to make sure it never happens again. Seen the fact that, even with all the immermore draconian laws on racist speech and with all the attempts of clamping down on free speech in this regard, and making it illegal, the ultra-right-wing movement in europe is way bigger and stronger (and in general keeps getting stronger) in europe then in the USA, one can seriously doubt the wisdom of it all.

In the meantime, ofcourse, you are imposing your will on others, and limiting their freedom in a way you would not want to be limited yourself, (nor in a way we do with other things that are just the same, but does not involve racist speech - and thus making our system of justice more irratic), like when others would decide anti-racist speech, for example, is forbidden.

See part 2.

Freedom of Speech: the paradigm (2)

2005-04-23T12:14:00.000+02:00

- why everyone is for it, *exept* if... [fill in a reason] -

Despite my earlier comment of it being my last post, I've been doing research on what really constitutes left and right (left and right nowadays have little to do with human rights or racism, those are more properties of the axis [f2s.com] of authoritarian/fascist and libertarian/anarchist), on how the universal declaration of human rights actually came to be [paulwilliams.com] (it was not just a bunch of libertarian or anarchist people) and the history of the concept of human rights [universalrights.net] (you'll be happy to hear that the concept of human rights is indeed quite recent, that the UDHR originally a product of early 20th century European thinking and thus was not universal at all, but things evolved, as also the previous link notes). Of course they're not universal because they're called universal, it's more like the other way round (I'll reply to the argument "but what if the world was mainly ruled by Hitlers and Stalins" later).

I may reply later in detail to your last post, but I'm still convinced that your "hypocrisy test" poses a false dilemma (or at least presents a false conclusion) and that it is not possible to make good social rules by only looking at rational arguments, because the human nature and thus also society simply are not rational. There is this thing called a conscience that most people have, and simply factoring that out of rule making altogether because it's not exactly the same for everyone does not automatically give you good rules for well functioning society.

You may become the ultimate "impartialist" who can set aside all his own moral values and rules, but that does not mean the rules you end up with that way are rules that result in a well functioning society. Society grows, evolves and is per definition deeply affected what happened before. You call those ghosts from the parts and chains that prevent following the path to ultimate rational enlightenment, but others see it as learning from your mistakes and *attempting* (which obviously does not automatically mean succeeding) to prevent them from happening again. Therefore just discarding that

For example, the banning of hate speech in Europe and the inalienable right to have arms in the US are indeed examples of mainly symbolic rules as opposed to purely rational rules. But exactly this symbolism is very strong, and you cannot discard that as being irrelevant or "overrulable" purely in the name of impartial logic and consistency.

Just abolishing them (even in the name of rationality or enlightenment), would always be interpreted as a signal that the government doesn't want you to have weapons so they can better oppress you, or that the holocaust wasn't that bad after (or maybe even didn't happen). You may know that is not the case, but society just doesn't work that way. You can't manage it like it's a bunch of drones who simply follow the rules and do nothing more or nothing less, nor think outside the box. That's why I stand by my point that each society has the right to make its own rules based on its experiences, and why I think the absolute free speech in the US is exactly as justifiable (even though I don't agree with it) as the banning of hate speech in Europe.

- Halo1

I didn't make any conclusions, as of yet, so it may be a bit premature to call it false. On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.

Thus, I'll go further as if you gave one of two answers: yes and no.

Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden. And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions. Opinions change, we both agree on that also.

Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden.

If you do accept and agree to that, then, for sure, you are not hypocritical.

We both now, however, that you (well, at least I) would never agree to such a thing, whether they have a majority, claim it's a basic right or make laws that forbid it.

Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?

If we, using the same reasoning, have the right to 'say' it, whether it is against a basic right or not, then so does he. If he doesn't, then so don't we.

Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next. Even if we are convinced our opinion is right, another person with a fully opposite opinion can be convinced *he* is right.

Now, my last point is, that facists and racists, as you yourself rightfully pointed out, would be the first to forbid speech that they seem as unallowable. Suppressing freedom of speech is THE sign of dictatorships. It boils down to saying: because I'm (or 'we', when they have majority) of the opinion that it can't be said, you may not say it.

Well, guess what, we are doing just the same.

That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too.

So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA).

I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid.

- Newsbyte

"On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it. "

Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be. I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it. In fact, I think the other choice of simply blindly defending whatever the rules are and switching with them like a leave in the wind is actually hypocrite. I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold.

"Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden."

And this is where the societies come into play. As I've said many times now already: you cannot construct social theories purely on rules of logic. If you would argue against education, people would probably think you're a looney and ignore you. If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again.

"And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions."

Not just mere opinions like yours or mine, but opinions of a society that encompasses pretty much the entire world. The UDHR committee originally consisted of someone from the US, someone from France, someone from Lebanon and someone from China (you may call them all "left", but as I said in my previous post, left and right is meaningless in this context; it's libertarian/anarchist vs authoritarian/fascist in this debate).

It was later included and referred to in a lot of other conventions, treaties and covenants [universalrights.net] and many of its elements can be found back in religions, pre-existing laws/rules (such as the US Constitution), works from philosophers, ... This is not just some majority opinion, it is something that has grown out of human society as a whole (left, right, authoritarian, libertarian, ...), trying to define what makes us human, which rights must be guaranteed in order for people "to be able to be humans", all with the goal of encouraging dignity, peace, cooperation and respect for all.

The Preamble nicely explains where those rules come from and why they chose those particular rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, therefore, [...] "

"Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden. "

Again, this has nothing to do with right-wingers, but more with fascism (and yes, there are just as well left-winged people who lean very closely to fascism, such as Stalin). Fascism and authoritarian regimes in general exalt the nation and often race above the individual. They are in fact naturally opposed to human rights. They would not have social or historical evidence to show that their "rights" are foundations of peace and dignity. They would probably not even create such a thing in the first place.

A declaration of "rights" with other kinds of goals than the goals mentioned above, would simply no longer be a declaration of human rights, but then it would indeed be a rose by any other name (just like a directive to legalise software patents suddenly does not result in the prohibition of software patents by calling it a "directive on computer-implemented inventions"). You don't further the goals of peace and human dignity by explicitly giving people "the right to call black people sub-human", nor by forbidding other people to criticise discrimination.

In my opinion, you are starting from the false premise that the UDHR and all documents based on that (and thus reinforced its validity) are merely some (left-wing) opinions which can easily be refuted and which I simply use because they and the name of the charter they appear in come in very handy for me. They are not particularly left-wing (if anything, they are maybe humanist), they are very strongly argued, they came about by world-wide discussions, they are accepted in principle (though definitely not always in practice) pretty much all around the world, they are the result of hundreds of years of evolution and revolution, ...

"Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?"

First of all, see above. Secondly, of course another person (or group of persons, or even large group of persons) could feel like that, I never denied that. Neverthelss, anti hate-speech laws follow the same spirit as the goal of the evolved concept of human rights (even though you can disagree with the "implementation" of these principles in that form): they protect human dignity.

A "pro-racism" law does not promote the goals of these rules in any way. Absence of banning of hate speech (without promoting it) is however simply another way to try to find a balance between the different rights and trying to promote the goals of the declaration in a different way. How a part of society attempts to reach those goals in detail is, once again, destined to follow from their history.

"Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next."

That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it.

"That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too. "

If you mean fascists with ultra-rights, then you are mistaken. Fascists do not want things because they are "good for society", unless you redefine society as being a particular subclass of the population based on an arbitrary feature and no-one else besides those people. You might want to read up a bit on fascism [wikipedia.org].

"So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA)."

And a democratic state can just as well can choose not to (in the sense of absolute freedom of speech), as is proven by Europe.

"I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid. "

It is most certainly true that making some part of free speech illegal moves you move towards the fascist/dictatorial side of the spectrum. In fact, when I took the test [f2s.com] at the political compass site I linked to in my previous post, I ended up in the lower left quadrant (left and libertarian), but relatively close to the center (-5, -6 or something like that on a scale of 20 iirc). I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme).

"Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be."

Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).

"I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it."

Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.

Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.

"I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold."

I think you mean; why you do not agree with me. My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.

Basically, you are saying: well, societies aren't rational, and don't have to be. Well, if so, then you can't have anything against societies like that of the taliban, which denegrate women.

You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.

"If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again."

This is rather a fact, but not an argument. It would, for instance, only be true if one had not the majority of the people thinking the same. Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again.

Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can.

Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance.

If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution.

"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it. "

Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you accept that, then? No? Then neither should a person accept it now.

" I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme)."

Well, this is another basic disagreement, then. I *do* think that extremism is a bad thing, and inherently so. In fact, that is proven by the fact that it doesn't matter if it's facism: communism or muslim fundamentalism are as bad, because they are extremist. EVERTHING that goes more to the extreme is a bad thing, but you are welcome if you can cite me some examples where extremism is a good thing to prove me wrong.

"Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself)."

I simply meant that if the UDHR were drawn up by fascists in your hypothetical world and they put in that anti-racism were forbidden because it was supposedly against a fundamental right, that I would not accept it (and you found that that hypocrite, because I do accept forbidding hate speech), and that I do not think that this is hypocrite at all for the reasons explained in my previous post (and partly repeated below).

In short: fascists are against the principle of individual rights, as the state goes above everything. So any "rights" they give, are per definition never universal (since the state can change those at will for anyone and at any time). So they simply cannot draw up a UDHR, except one that states "you have no inherent individual rights". Therefore, your hypothesis is false, and my non-acceptance is not even very relevant. A better answer would have been "mu" I guess.

"Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't. "

Duh. That's why I tried to explain why I did not feel hypocrite, so you could see why I feel that way and could argue against it (or, who knows, agree I'm not hypocrite).

"Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture."

My belief/preaching is that there are fundamental human rights such as e.g. human dignity and personal freedom, and that any rules made that claim to protect human rights cannot be squarely aimed at the destruction of such rights.

That's why I accept banning of hate speech (it aims at protecting dignity, at a trade off with freedom and possibly other things) and not banning any speech at all (aims at protecting personal freedom, at a potential trade-off with dignity and possibly other things). It's also why I do not accept forbidding anti-racism speech (reducing personal freedom in exchange for what?) or explicitly allowing discriminatory talk (reducing dignity in exchange for what? It does not provide for extra freedom, since it was already allowed).

"My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that. "

I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues.

"You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too. "

You missed my point. Maybe I didn't stress it enough in my last post, but I was almost all the time talking about the goals of the UDHR (protecting human dignity, the right not to have to live in constant fear, ... the stuff that's mentioned in the preamble). The rules of the UDHR are just general guidelines to achieve those things and sometimes trade-offs have to be made (as illustrated in the free speech debate). Which trade-off you make depends on your background and I think a society has the right to choose which trade-off they make. You examples have nothing to do with this.

"Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again. "

If they did that, they would simply do that because it can help them control the people, not because they think it's some kind of right. Fascists do not want personal freedom in any way, they think the state is much more important than the individual and that the individual should be sacrificed in favour of the state.
Since human rights per definition pertain to all human individuals, "What if fascists defined human rights?" does not make any sense, since they per definition oppose rights that pertain to all individuals. They cannot define any human right (not even the right to live), since they don't believe in the mere principle of individual rights.

"Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can."

No, the real difference between fascism and everything else (including democracy) is that inherent rights for each and all individuals are recognised at all. And that these others do this not because it strengthens the state or some arbitrary subgroup of the population, but because it is recognised as an inherent right of every human individual to have rights (yes, a right to personal rights) which cannot be arbitrarily taken away by the state as in fascism. I.e., the state is supposed to exist for the individuals, instead of the other way round.

It is true that a democracy can keep existing with opposing view (it may even need them, because I don't think there is any realistic scenario in which 2, let alone all, people voluntarily have exactly the same opinion on everything). And striving for as much personal freedom is a lofty goal. But there are always conflicting rights/benefits to be resolved and trade-offs to be made. One could even argue "A fascist state cannot afford to ban hate speech because it needs as many binding means and as much unity feeling as possible in a select group, while a democracy can do that."

"Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. "

Universal in the sense that they should apply to any and all human beings, because [insert preamble of the UDHR] and I have not seen any counter argument as to why the preamble would be wrong (contains false statements, inconsistencies, illogical things, you name it). Not because they per definition are or because that document sums them up. Do you you think that it should be possible that not everyone has the right to life? (and I don't mean you personally, I mean you the impartial one). That not everyone has a right to personal dignity? To live in peace as opposed to constant fear/terror? That people have the right to have personal rights at all?

My hunch is that your answer will be along the lines of "I don't know" or "that's not for me to decide", since as soon as you answer yes or no, you take a moral stand one way or the other and suddenly are not impartial anymore. But then what is your goal with being impartial? Is it a goal on its own? And while you may see other people's view as limited because they accept some opinions as valuable in the course of decision making, can't you see that it's possible that you yourself are also limited (in another way obviously) by refusing to take that information into account? (based on the argument and that in an alternate universe, that information may not be true or even be the reverse)

We do live in this world as it is, and it's that world our decisions have an impact on. We can only know for sure what has happened here (and then still only partially) and learn from that. Society is not something you can predict based on pure logic, and therefore also not steer based on pure logic. Not wanting to make any moral judgement whatsoever about anything is a serious handicap when deciding on social issues I think, just like an autist can sometimes be very smart and yet miss out on an awful lot of things (especially as far as social matters are concerned).

"You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance."

Darwin argues it's based on survival. Anyway, I meant that that declaration of rights was based on the experience gained from everything that had happened before. One way to describe this process is to look at it as all that previous knowledge evolving into something that combines it. I was merely figuratively speaking.

"If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution. "

As I've said before, they would not create such a declaration, since they don't accept the notion of individual rights (that would actually be the best case, the worst case would be a declaration that simply said "you have no inherent rights"). I don't know whether evolution has anything to do with whether or not nazism or fascism never became the strongest force (from a certain point they are inherently weak, since they are both built upon the principle of "us against everyone else"), but that was not what I was saying nor what I was thinking about.

Of course, we only have a sample size of one as far as "the human population" of the world is concerned. But until you can argue that the drafters and subscribers to the UDHR as we know it are wrong in asserting that e.g. "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world", I think that may very well be simply true.

Unless you also question the mere principle of striving for freedom, justice and peace above, in which case I suppose you won't/don't/can't/mu argue them.

"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it.

Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you accept that, then? No? Then neither should a person accept it now."

Maybe I should have said "We are not talking about just *an* opinion on itself", i.e. an opinion in the void. I simply wanted to say it's a an incredibly extensively argued opinion with lots of supporting facts (as in historic evidence) to back it up. And apart from that, it was also drafted by people coming from societies with entirely different views.

"I do not think that being not extreme is necessarily a bad thing (and yes, there is a difference between being undecided or having no opinion and having principles and beliefs, but not taking them to the extreme).

Well, this is another basic disagreement, then. I *do* think that extremism is a bad thing, and inherently so. "

I think you misread my sentence, sorry for the confusing double negation (or even tripple negation if you also count "bad").

"In fact, that is proven by the fact that it doesn't matter if it's facism: communism or muslim fundamentalism are as bad, because they are extremist. EVERTHING that goes more to the extreme is a bad thing, but you are welcome if you can cite me some examples where extremism is a good thing to prove me wrong."

Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts. I also think that considering free speech per definition the ultimate right that should trump all others (and citing opinions of courts and society when making your case, while consistently disregarding all opinions I provide to you) is quite an extreme position.

Maybe you are trying to be too neutral, resulting in an extreme neutral position? Just a thought, but maybe the diagram on the political compass site needs a third axis :)

I think we have some basic differences in perceprtion on things, where we both think we are being illogical...or where you think logic doesn't matter very much, I dunno. If you really think this:

"I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues. "

Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it. I think this is a basic misconception, and even if it WERE true, then it means that whatever group has the power could rightfully claim it is the way based on their opinions, without having to argument them logically.

I do not think this to be correct, for the simple reason that every group imaginable always tries to give their rationale for it, they always argument it, and they always strive to be consistent (even when they are not, or being pseudo-rational/scientific, at least they try to convey it that way.

So, while I agree societies are not always being logical and consistent, when it comes to governing and laws, I think one DOES not to strive for consistency.

Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not. I would claim that in most cases, facist/racist/etc. ideologies show a far greater degree of a lack of consystency and illogic, which is yet another defining difference that can be used to show they are incorrect. Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.

You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction. While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't. It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?

In a similar way you are going the wrong way, when you try to shut up people, that are, in your opinion, against 'basic human rights'. What you end up with, is being more the way that those people would be, and if you think those people are doing the wrong thing, then you shouldn't be trying to go that way neither.

"Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts."

Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? That societies can be irratic and illogical and inconsistent when making laws? Well, I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions of it that you seem to do (see above). What supporting facts? That a lot of dudes with the best intentions drew up a list of basic huma rights? I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature.

If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect merely an opinion (even if it may be a general one) of people in a given time-frame.

If it are only opinions, then they can't be, on themselves, be enough to have more sway then any other opinion, unless one claims that opinions are always right when a majority says they are. But in that case, when the majority would decide something else is against basic rights, which you would feel strongly about, they would have that right too.

Hmm...well, said that before. :-)

I accept opinions, but only as opinions. If they want to have more sway then any other opinion, they have to be argumented logically. If one does not accept logic, then what's the point? There is a good quote about that I once read in a book about my favorite (intellectual) writer, Carl Sagan, though it originally was of someone else. I'll look it up and place it on my blog, sometime.

"Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it."

I said "opinions based on facts", as in historical evidence. There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand some basic respect for those rights etc), but a conclusion always contains some form of opinion, unless you are working with maths.

"Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not."

I never claimed you don't have to show any logic, I simply said you can't use only logic. And at some level it even is logical that we in Europe banned hate speech, given that we saw what it indirectly led to (regardless of what courts have said, speech is a very powerful weapon if used properly). It may not be impartial or without moral prejudice, but that's something else.

"Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less."

Have you seen the progress of extreme right in the US? They've been governing the whole thing for the last 4 years! I do not think banning of hate speech as such has a large impact on the progress or deterring of extreme right. I do think it can have a profound influence on the living quality of some minorities. Most importantly however, I'm convinced that in the case of Europe, it's an extremely strong symbolical thing, which makes it no longer "a ban on hate speech as such" but "a ban on hate speech with a further symbolic effect". See below for more on this.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction.

It moves us slightly more to the center (slightly, because as I said it's a trade-off of one basic human right for another). I thought you were the one that was against extremes? Keep in mind that the bottom is total anarchy.

"While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benefit of peace, I don't."

I never said that. Really. What I said is that it is a symbolic action of society, to show that (at that period in time) people were willing to sacrifice part of their freedom (of speech) in order to try to do something to help preventing such atrocities from happening again. It's a symbol, plain and simple.

I also said that tearing down that symbol in the name of logic and consistency would have effects going much farther that what logic would dictate. It would not be the same as never having had a ban on hate speech.

"It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?"

That's the stepping stone theory, which has proven to be false as far as the banning of hate speech in Europe is concerned. In the US, the terrorist attacks are merely used as an excuse by those in power to to get more and more power. I don't think you can say that of the banning of hate speech in Europe after WWII.

"Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? "

Name one large conflict/war in history that was caused by general respect for human rights (from the UDHR) from both sides. And how many atrocities in history did not involve violating human rights?

"I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature. If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect merely an opinion (even if it may be a general one) of people in a given time-frame. "

You are misinterpreting the meaning of "universal" in the UDHR. It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally (and again, not because it simply is that way per definition or law of nature, but because that's the whole point of having the declaration at all) to all human beings (instead of just to some subgroup), and that they cannot be taken away by the state.

"If it are only opinions, then they can't be, on themselves, be enough to have more sway then any other opinion, unless one claims that opinions are always right when a majority says they are. But in that case, when the majority would decide something else is against basic rights, which you would feel strongly about, they would have that right too. "

You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me. It has to do with uniting conflicting opinions from around the round the world (which is independent of having a majority, but which is a sign that it is well reasoned if the end result is not some mumbo-jumbo compromise that does not mean anything) and (more important to you) basing yourself on historic evidence.

"I accept opinions, but only as opinions. If they want to have more sway then any other opinion, they have to be argumented logically."

You still have not shown one place where the preamble of the UDHR argues illogically.

"You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me."

No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.

"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally"

Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.

"There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand..."

If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.

Now, while you claimed consistency does not make a law/policy stronger, I claim it does. It doesn't make it 'better', because that means giving it a subjective value, and that depends on one's views.

Therefor, a reasoning that has consistency, even if one does not agree with, is stronger then the same kind of reasoning without it. I think this is always true: I can't think of any reasoning that gets stronger when it has more internal contradictions in it.

Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines? IMHO, (I was gonna say that in my blog, but...seems difficult not to be further drawn into this discussion) it is, again, logic that can lead us to it.

A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. It is as simple as elegant in it's logic and almost undisputable as a good ethical guideline, and that's why I think, personally, that allmost all basic rights in the UDHR are 'good'. Contrary to you, however, I'm still well aware that, ultimately, this is an opinion. Somebody can perfectly be of the opinion that killing blacks because of their color of skin is not against a basic human right, because -again in his opinion - niggers are sub-human, and thus, fall outside the scope of human basic rights. You see how easily it is to make a case like that if opinions differ, regardless of the so-called universal application that you claim can be found in history. (If anything, history shows us as much genocides as anything else).

However, and here comes the logic into the game again, when you claim *that*, you should also accept the claim of black people saying it's right to kill whites because they are subhuman. If you don't accept that, then you are clearly talking crap, and your argumentation has no validity.

Thus, reversing the reasoning on yourself (and one's opinion if it is 'right', then ) is the way to determine if something is ethical correct, even when opinions differ.

That's why I extensively asked you the question (not sure if I ever got a clear answer, though ;-) whether you would accept it, if things were reversed. I don't think you would, which makes it ethical dubious at best.

I however, am fully prepared to let another person speak his mind; I have no problems with reversing my reasoning on myself, and thus, I do find, indeed, this reasoning not only stronger in consistency, but also better in an ethical way.

Conclusion:

As we can see in this, originally /., discussion, sometimes it is difficult to get to agree on something, if not downright impossible. It has nothing to do with intelligence; Halo1 is, IMHO, a pretty intelligent guy; I have been impressed with his posts about software-patents and there a rational mind was clearly at work.

Neither are my friends lacking in intelligence, yet, almost exactly the same discussion evolved some of them too, as can be seen in 'Outlawing books'. I am glad to say, however, that at least one of them seems to have turned 180° and thus, recently stupified me with saying and argumenting the same things I had done before, but to which he had objected.

He didn't seem to remember it, but I delude myself in thinking maybe it was thanks to my logical debate that he changed his mind. :-)

Now, the main problem here, and, in fact, the only one, is the question whether you accept logic and rationality as the determining factor to discuss a reasoning/argument or not.

If not, then fine: I'll won't use it neither, and we both sprout mere opinions.

If you do, then we can have a meaningful discussion and look at which reasoning holds more sway.

In this discussion with Halo1, the main culprits why we can't seem to come to a conclusion in this regard, is because:

1)he accepts the UDHR as something that is universal in the sense that "it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally" , while I do not.

He claims to find proof in history for that, but I see rather the opposite. This may seem as a standoff, but a theory does only last as long as *no* observations dispute it. In the case of history, there are examples that would support the theory that those rights in the UDHR are universal, but there are also those (like the example of slavery) which clearly shows it doesn't. The moment you have an exeption, you can't claim it is universal.

If one accepts that, one also has to accept that the UDHR is not universal. And if it has no universal value, it is based on opinions. If it's based on opinions, then it has no more sway then any other opinion(s), whether it was decided by majority, by broad world consensus, by power, by good intentions, by the deep thoughts of different people of differnet countries: it still remains an opinion.

Now, Halo1 rightfully says: but it is logically argumented! (Hopefully indicating that logic is, indeed, of great importance in the matter :-) While yes, it is...but only if you accept the basic premisses it begins with, which are based on current ideas on dignity and peace and all that. He asks to demonstrate where the UDHR is being unrational, but, since I agree with the principles, *I* have a difficult time argumenting that.

However, I could imagine a fascist or other extremist, deciding the goals of the UDHR themselves are not enterily right. He could argue, for instance, that 'peace' and 'dignity' only is relevant to humans, and that, in his opinion, jews/niggers/etc. are not human, and thus fall outside the basic human rights.

Thus, it is easily to demonstrate that whatever opinion you base yourself on, an argument can't be won by having that opinion. For a facist/extremist saying 'but it says so in the UDHR' can have no more sway, then when someone is trying to alter my opinion by saying 'but it says so in the bible'..which means, very little, thus. ;-) The argumentation in the UDHR may be consistent, but is based on the view that all humans have basic rights, which is an opinion of it's own, which may not be agreed on by fascists.

So, is there no way to determine if something is 'right', then? I think there is, as I've showed in my last post. You can't truelly debabe something meaningfull, if all your opinions are diametrically opposed. Therefor, what you have to do is find a common opinion, and work on that further.

A common opinion would be, that you can't be hypocritical in your own argument. Another would be, that one opinion, on its own, is not worth more then another.

One could not agree to even that, ofcourse, but the advantage is, that if they don't (have to) agree to these opinions, neither do you, which will end you both with mere opinions anyhow. The quote I once read in a Carl Sagan book describes this point very well, and I'll try to look it up and place it in my blog.

When people do start from this basic common ground, one can go further, for instance, in the line of Kants' philosophy as I've described earlier. As an ethical guideline: 'Do not do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you' is as basic as it gets, and from there on you can decide on a whole lot of ethical arguments/debates/laws, including forbidding some forms of speech. Just ask yourself: "Would I feel it is right, that something I feel strongly about, but is against an opinion I do not agree with (and yes, even the UDHR could be considered that) is forbidden for me to say?"

That's why I asked Halo1 what his reaction would be, if his own reasoning would be reversed against him. If he would say 'no', then it would indicate that he would do something to others, which he wouldn't want them to do to himself, which makes the ethical value of such an argumentation very dubious.