What is/are freedom/rights

[Bill Anderson]

On Thu, 2003-10-09 at 04:48, DAVID BALAZIC wrote:
> From: "shrek-m at gmx.de" <shrek-m at gmx.de>
> 
> >Andre Verheij wrote:
> >
> >>I think this person should be banned from the mailing list. 
> >>  
> >>
> >
> >i agree!
> 
> But there is no censorship. There is freedom of speech.
> 
> This is a good occasion to show whether you respect
> human rights and your own constitution or whether you are
> just a bunch of hypocrites.

Only one post on this thread.

You understand not censorship, nor property rights according to this
claim. 

This list is not a government function, and as such banning certain
things from it are not censorship. Property rights are the foundation of
all rights. This list is property of Red Hat, and it is theirs to do
with as they so see fit. Just as your computer (assuming it's yours, of
course) is yours to do with as you see fit; just as code you right is
yours to do with as you see fit, or your body is yours to do with as you
see fit providing you infringe not on others' rights.

Now, there is no such thing as protected speech. Free speech is free
speech. HOWEVER, you have no right to a particular audience! You have no
right to step into my house and preach whatever you want, my ears and my
house or my property and I will use them as I see fit. Prohibiting you
from doing as I just stated is not a limitation on speech, it is the
protection of property rights, which precede and mandate free speech.

A non-governmental entity can choose to approve/disapprove of any
expression it so chooses, including this list and banning certain
things/people from them; just as having property rights means you can
prevent certain people from occupying your property.

Free speech does NOT mean you can sit on my porch with a bullhorn saying
whatever you want, at noon or midnight, unless those w/in earshot
approve.

Free speech does not mean you can force people to listen/read; it does
not mean you have a right to an audience. How odd, and unfortunately
common, that someone posts about protecting rights and in the same
"breath" proposes people be forced to listen to/read things they do not
wish to. That is antithetical to the very idea of freedom. I believe I
know where the hypocrisy lies, and it is not with banning people form
this list. If the powers that be decide that I need to be banned from
this list for what I just posted, so be it. It's *their* property, and I
have no right to use it w/o their approval.


OK, I'm done before I *really* start ranting.

-- 
"Suppose the Second amendment said 'A well-educated electorate being
necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people
to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who
would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"
 --Georgetown University professor Robert Levy