Hello Seth,

Seth:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 22:41:14 -0700, odinn
> <odinn.cyberguerrilla@???> wrote:
>
>> Do you? It's great that you have the opportunity to be here to
>> say that you do, because this is what happens when you aren't
>> censored. But if you do object to censorship you wouldn't take a
>> defensive posture in favor of censors and prefaces it by saying
>> you object to censorship.
>
> It always helps to define your term when having a discussion like
> this. Odinn, when you use the term 'censorship', what exactly do
> you mean by that?

The question certainly is a bit 'leading,' and I will preface my
response by saying when we create very strict notions of how to define
such a thing, in my humble opinion, we do a disservice to the
potential discourse about the subject itself. In other words, I would
take what you see here with plenty of grains of salt, and not assume
an inflexible definition; a saying comes to mind ~

"newborn – we are tender and weak
in death – we are rigid and stiff

living plants are supple and yielding
dead branches are dry and brittle

so the hard and unyielding belong to death
and the soft and pliant belong to life

an inflexible army does not triumph
an unbending tree breaks in the wind

thus the rigid and inflexible will surely fail
while the soft and flowing will prevail"

(Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu – chapter 76)

In ruminating about the subject of censorship as it has been more
recently discussed on this list, some interesting notes can be seen
from doing a quick search of the list itself by keyword, which
recovers some posts either discussing the subject or simply including
the word "censorship:"

https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/search/20380101.000000.00000000@ml:unsyste
m,censorship.en.html

Specific to issues of the bitcoin-dev mailing list (and questions
about the so-called "moderaterors"), since that has already been
mentioned in this thread, I would recommend that you take a look at
this post of Amir Taaki's July 24, 2014 post which references that.
His post,
https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/20140724.121401.ec621c8f.en.html
makes reference to this bitcointalk link,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=418071.msg6412027#msg6412027
in which Mike Hearn supported banning and blocking people, and I quote
Mike here from his April 2014 bitcointalk post (and a March 2014
bitcoin-dev post):
(April 2014 bitcointalk, Mike Hearn:) "There were private discussions
afterwards you weren't privy to where setting a moderation policy
[bitcoin-dev mailing list] was debated (drafts were put together,
etc), with temporary bans being a part of that. In the end it didn't
come to that - this time - as nobody wants to have to spend time on
this and the tools kind of suck anyway. But you should be absolutely
sure that it was considered."
(March 2014 bitcoin-dev, Mike Hearn, commenting to Peter Todd:) "For
what it's worth, if I were the moderator of this list I would have
banned you a long time ago because I value a friendly atmosphere more
than your "insights")

Of course, now such so-called "moderation" has been put into place,
but it is not moderation, it is censorship. [The best alternative to
this would be, to refine the stated purpose of the list so that it
better attracts those who are interested in technical matters, or to
have core discussions migrated to another list rather than censor an
existing list that has been essentially an open forum for development
discussion of a wide variety for any interested person. I do not,
however, expect the censors of bitcoin-dev to understand these
subtleties of life, or to change, nor do I wish to contribute to a
community's list which is run by censors, so I unsubscribed, though as
I have previously pointed out, I remain active on the bitcoin/bitcoin
github repository occasionally.] So, you ask, how would I define
censorship? Fine, I'll get to that, but just remember, it will be a
flexible definition, and please imagine it as one with porous and
flexible boundaries (and take it with plenty of grains of salt).

Interestingly, now under this so-called "moderation" on bitcoin-dev,
not only does Mike Hearn find himself censored, but so does anyone
else who has anything to say that the censors might not like. (I am
not saying here I agree with Mike Hearn's approach to such issues, nor
do I like XT, for example. But the slew of recent censorship on
bitcoin-dev affects anyone who might have something to say that the
censors might not appreciate and it is highly subjective. To quibble
about "what is censorship" is almost beside the point. The fact that
it _is_ censorship and that censorship _is_ indeed happening on
bitcoin-dev is no doubt important, and that it impedes the flow of
information - meaningful information - that could benefit millions if
it were permitted to be included in the dialogue of dev, is something
that should not be dismissed.

The following is clipped from the ACLU's site, "What is Censorship?"
(Note that it is heavy on interpretations of law in the USA, and I am
not fond of "the law" (by which I mean, those antiquated legal
frameworks which are backed by coercion and violence in today's world,
which operate under an assumption that representation is necessary) ~
I will add some notes of my own in _underline_ that emphasize my own
notes where I have some additional thoughts to add to this segment
below. Enjoy, por fa.)


What Is Censorship?

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are
"offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their
personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be
carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

_Consider as part of this data, or financial censorship as well ~
anything where people essentially decide their views should be imposed
on others in a way that results in banning, blacklisting, or filtering
others' ability to transmit information to the world._

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts
against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their
actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become
dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government,
promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the
McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best
countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in
defense of the threatened expression.

American society has always been deeply ambivalent about these
questions. On the one hand, our history is filled with examples of
overt government censorship, from the 1873 Comstock Law to the 1996
Communications Decency Act. On the other hand, the commitment to
freedom of imagination and expression is deeply embedded in our
national psyche, buttressed by the First Amendment, and supported by a
long line of Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of
artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books,
theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music
videos and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces.

Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide
a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content
neutrality"-- the government cannot limit expression just because any
listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its
content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means
tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting,
outrageous -- or just plain bad.

_Personally, I don't think this should require a court to tell us that
it is so, it just seems to be a common sense principle: We might
think something is just shit, but we hear it or read it initially
anyway, and gather some understanding (if possible) before accepting
or dismissing what it offers._

The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it
will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal
interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded
theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced
or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.

_Show me an example of anything on bitcoin-dev that would cause an
imminent harm to anyone, I would argue that it does not exist, other
than censorship, and possibly the endless increase in cost to transact
that some developers are tending to not wish to mitigate in the near
term._

SEX
SEXUAL SPEECH
Sex in art and entertainment is the most frequent target of censorship
crusades. Many examples come to mind. A painting of the classical
statue of Venus de Milo was removed from a store because the managers
of the shopping mall found its semi-nudity "too shocking." Hundreds of
works of literature, from Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird
Sings to John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, have been banned from
public schools based on their sexual content.

A museum director was charged with a crime for including sexually
explicit photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe in an art exhibit.

American law is, on the whole, the most speech-protective in the world
- -- but sexual expression is treated as a second-class citizen. No
causal link between exposure to sexually explicit material and
anti-social or violent behavior has ever been scientifically
established, in spite of many efforts to do so. Rather, the Supreme
Court has allowed censorship of sexual speech on moral grounds -- a
remnant of our nation's Puritan heritage.

This does not mean that all sexual expression can be censored,
however. Only a narrow range of "obscene" material can be suppressed;
a term like "pornography" has no legal meaning . Nevertheless, even
the relatively narrow obscenity exception serves as a vehicle for
abuse by government authorities as well as pressure groups who want to
impose their personal moral views on other people.

PORNOGRAPHIC! INDECENT! OBSCENE!
Justice John Marshall Harlan's line, "one man's vulgarity is another's
lyric," sums up the impossibility of developing a definition of
obscenity that isn't hopelessly vague and subjective. And Justice
Potter Stewart's famous assurance, "I know it when I see it," is of
small comfort to artists, writers, movie directors and lyricists who
must navigate the murky waters of obscenity law trying to figure out
what police, prosecutors, judges and juries will think.

The Supreme Court's current definition of constitutionally unprotected
Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case called Miller v. California,
has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average
person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual
conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community
standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic,
political, or scientific value.

The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression -- in contrast
with "obscenity" -- is entitled to some constitutional protection, but
that indecency in some media (broadcasting, cable, and telephone) may
be regulated. In its 1978 decision in Federal Communications
Commission v. Pacifica, the Court ruled that the government could
require radio and television stations to air "indecent" material only
during those hours when children would be unlikely listeners or
viewers. Broadcast indecency was defined as: "language that describes,
in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community
standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or
organs." This vague concept continues to baffle both the public and
the courts.

_SHIT! SHIT! SHIT_

> _______________________________________________ unSYSTEM mailing
> list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem

- --
http://abis.io ~
"a protocol concept to enable decentralization
and expansion of a giving economy, and a new social good"
https://keybase.io/odinn