Re: [members-discuss] Placing Members-Discuss in Moderation
"freedom of expression" and not having "censorship" are not just legal issues restraining governments, but principles that we should strive for at any level of communication in a free society. That "most counties" have places limits on it is in no way an argument for whether it's a good idea to do so by governments or elsewhere (nor of whether they had the right to do it or if even had the intended effect). That there is no legal right to not be censored "on some mailinglist" (by RIPE or anyone else) doesn't mean there's not a moral right or that it isn't a good idea in general to allow maximum free expression. Consider that the fact that Elad had the opportunity to show us all what kind of person he is almost certainly caused people (including me) to register to vote to prevent him from getting any kind of power in RIPE. This is free expression directly leading to more democracy, the fact that some people may have been annoyed, offended or hurt doesn't, in my opinion, weigh up to that result at all. Reacting to free expression functioning as intended by applying censorship is the exact wrong thing to do, both morally and practically. -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net> Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2020 17:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Placing Members-Discuss in Moderation
On 4. May 2020, at 10:06, Chris Izzard <chris.izzard@imcisland.is> wrote:
Dear Piotr, Reading this it sounds great at first but whatever you do to stop such huge email chains will always look like censorship whatever you like to call it. Such email lists do depend on the behaviour of everyone to follow a code but in practice this is usually not 100% possible. Yes it seemed that the email list was mostly in favour of censoring one person but the reality is that the vast majority just watched on and said nothing. In practice censoring damages the democratic credentials of this group because a small number of people have made the decision to do this and an even smaller number of people will police it. This action has put the Executive Board in a dangerous position open to all kinds of criticism and the email chain contained some pretty bad claims like Anti-Semitism.
Hello,
I see no dangerous position right now.
1) The moderation is for a limited time 2) You can still see all moderated mails at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss-unmoderated/ <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss-unmoderated/> so there is no censorship 3) Multiple calls to adhere to the code of conduct and the topic of the mailinglist were completely ignored on purpose (in my opinion with malicious intent) 4) The "small group of people" is the executive board that we democratically voted on, so I don't see how this is undemocratic. I would even say this is exactly the type of issue that the board should decide
On the contrary I (and expect other people) did not say anything as to not contribute to the flood of mails. I'm very grateful that this list is now moderated and I hope that this can be lifted after the election.
Also, just make to make it clear: "freedom of expression" should prevent the government from censoring you, it does not prevent you from getting moderated on some mailinglist. On the contrary most countries have rules that limit freedom of expression and this mailinglist has rules as well.
Best Regards
Sebastian
Terrence, Didn't you emailed me directly and showed interest about IPv4+ and about the damages that spamhaus are causing to the whole community ? If you support another candidate - you can just say so. Respectfully, Elad ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Terrence Koeman <terrence@darkness-reigns.com> Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 7:59 PM To: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net>; members-discuss@ripe.net <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Placing Members-Discuss in Moderation "freedom of expression" and not having "censorship" are not just legal issues restraining governments, but principles that we should strive for at any level of communication in a free society. That "most counties" have places limits on it is in no way an argument for whether it's a good idea to do so by governments or elsewhere (nor of whether they had the right to do it or if even had the intended effect). That there is no legal right to not be censored "on some mailinglist" (by RIPE or anyone else) doesn't mean there's not a moral right or that it isn't a good idea in general to allow maximum free expression. Consider that the fact that Elad had the opportunity to show us all what kind of person he is almost certainly caused people (including me) to register to vote to prevent him from getting any kind of power in RIPE. This is free expression directly leading to more democracy, the fact that some people may have been annoyed, offended or hurt doesn't, in my opinion, weigh up to that result at all. Reacting to free expression functioning as intended by applying censorship is the exact wrong thing to do, both morally and practically. -- Regards, Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V. Please quote relevant replies. Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone. ________________________________ From: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net> Sent: Thursday, 7 May 2020 17:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Placing Members-Discuss in Moderation
On 4. May 2020, at 10:06, Chris Izzard <chris.izzard@imcisland.is> wrote:
Dear Piotr, Reading this it sounds great at first but whatever you do to stop such huge email chains will always look like censorship whatever you like to call it. Such email lists do depend on the behaviour of everyone to follow a code but in practice this is usually not 100% possible. Yes it seemed that the email list was mostly in favour of censoring one person but the reality is that the vast majority just watched on and said nothing. In practice censoring damages the democratic credentials of this group because a small number of people have made the decision to do this and an even smaller number of people will police it. This action has put the Executive Board in a dangerous position open to all kinds of criticism and the email chain contained some pretty bad claims like Anti-Semitism.
Hello, I see no dangerous position right now. 1) The moderation is for a limited time 2) You can still see all moderated mails at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss-unmoderated/ <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss-unmoderated/> so there is no censorship 3) Multiple calls to adhere to the code of conduct and the topic of the mailinglist were completely ignored on purpose (in my opinion with malicious intent) 4) The "small group of people" is the executive board that we democratically voted on, so I don't see how this is undemocratic. I would even say this is exactly the type of issue that the board should decide On the contrary I (and expect other people) did not say anything as to not contribute to the flood of mails. I'm very grateful that this list is now moderated and I hope that this can be lifted after the election. Also, just make to make it clear: "freedom of expression" should prevent the government from censoring you, it does not prevent you from getting moderated on some mailinglist. On the contrary most countries have rules that limit freedom of expression and this mailinglist has rules as well. Best Regards Sebastian
participants (2)
-
Elad Cohen -
Terrence Koeman