Re: Oh No! Nazis on the Nets

["Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>]

Hadmut Danisch says:
> 
> Perry E. Metzger says:
> 
> > Incorrect. Those who do not understand freedom think that by
> > oppressing Nazis and preventing them from speaking you have somehow
> > protected freedom. However, in doing so, you have used the methods of
> > the Nazis. 
> 
> If a murderer tries to kill you and you have a gun, you will shoot
> back, I assume, even if you use the same method as him.

I will indeed shoot at anyone that is trying to shoot at me. Tell me,
are the Nazis currently censoring you in Germany? In any case,
reasoning by analogy is specious. My point was very simple: a free
country is one in which people may speak their mind. You cannot keep a
country free by imposing censorship; it is a contradiction in terms.

> > You can fight Naziism by spreading information about the evils of
> > Naziism. 
> 
> I wish it were true. They were trying this for many years. We all thought
> that Naziism will never come back because the lesson (WW II) was big enough.
> But it didn't work as you can see in the news magazines. 

Using your own criterion, the censorship hasn't worked either.

> What do you believe, is it a good idea to publish software like PGP
> if it is used by the Nazis to organize their work?

Let us say rather that it is not possible to prevent cryptographic
software from being used by Nazis and I would rather see it available
to all rather than to be used only by the Nazis. Any system which
could stop Nazis from using cryptographic software would involve so
much wholesale monitoring of all communications as to eliminate the
benefits of fighting Naziism.

It is not enough to defeat the Nazis -- one must also avoid destroying
the thing which one wants to preserve, which is freedom. If the price
of destroying Nazis is to destroy the thing you were trying to
protect, you have done no good.

> > You can fight it by vigorously prosecuting those who commit
> > acts of violence. 
> 
> If you can get them...

One has no choice but to try.

> > > I'm sure that american press freedom is not better than german ones.
> > 
> > Untrue. In the U.S., I can start a newspaper without any licenses from
> > the Government, and I can print anything I wish in that newspaper
> > without fear of government prosecution. (I might be sued by a private
> > party for libel if I intentionally lie about someone, but thats quite
> > different.) In Germany, I cannot just open a newspaper and print, say,
> > Nazi editorials in it.
> 
> Untrue. In Germany, I can do the very same. And I do not get
> sued by private party with lawyers who want to get some millions
> of dollars. And whether you are allowed to open your Nazi editorial
> depends on what you understand under "Nazi".

Are you telling me that if I were to write in a newspaper "all Turks
should be killed" that this would be legal under German law? I was
under the impression that you cannot.

> > > Seen from Germany, american presidents elections look like a mixture
> > > of a football game and a tv show.
> > 
> > Yes, but that is a statement that the press in the U.S. is bad, not
> > that it is unfree. Freedom and quality are orthogonal.
> 
> Untrue. A press without freedom can't be good.

Then by definition yours cannot be good, because yours is unfree.

> I can publish newpapers with nude girls on the front. Is this possible
> in your country?

Yes. In fact, many magazines are published with nude women in front.
You may have difficulty finding places willing to sell them, however.

> As far as I know in your country a lot of things are controlled by
> religious groups. Is this freedom?

Religious groups control religious institutions. They do not control
our government. Is it your contention that religious groups do not
control your religious institutions? In any case, what does this have
to do with freedom? If one chooses to go to a church, for instance,
what is wrong with that per se?

Perry