From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109799 invoked by alias); 3 May 2018 20:58:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 109789 invoked by uid 89); 3 May 2018 20:58:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=appointed, leaders, founder, betray X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com From: Alexandre Oliva To: Florian Weimer Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" , rms@gnu.org, Zack Weinberg , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke References: <87wowkx6t0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 20:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87wowkx6t0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> (Florian Weimer's message of "Thu, 03 May 2018 14:27:55 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 On May 3, 2018, Florian Weimer wrote: > In most cultures, government restrictions on access to information > which is specifically designed to enable people to commit illegal acts > are not considered censorship. I don't think you can list abortion in > this context without taking sides. There's law in the US that makes it a crime to publish information on how to circumvent digital handcuffs, you know. Even if you rationalize it and frame it with another term to make it more palatable, it's still censorship of information for practical use. GNU is the software development branch of the Free Software social and political movement. We don't mind taking sides; in fact, if we didn't, it wouldn't be a social and political movement. Our raison d'=C3=AAtre are the essential freedoms over information for practical use. The law criticized in the snippet under dispute is one that denies people the essential freedom to share information for practical use. It is fundamentally at odds with the most essential core value of our movement. I'm very disappointed and baffled that an allusion to a taboo topic that's two-levels removed, in a context in which the taboo topic is already established and unavoidable, is enough for people to gang up against not only the founder and leader of the movement, but also its most fundamental value, and to take the opposite side, practicing censorship and, by removing the criticism, taking the side of the censors that established the denounced censorship law. I'd have thought essential core values and the project leader's request would trample aesthetic reasons, personal preferences and even the discomfort of extending the coverage of a taboo topic. But no, the project has been taken out of the hands of its founder, and most of the appointed stewards seem to think it's reasonable to disregard it, to betray the core values, to practice the opposite of what we should stand for, so that we can have bland, pasteurized, neutral purely technical documentation that won't bring anyone any moral discomfort. Way to go to open sores hell: losing the moral backbone, standing for nothing, giving up and betraying the essential freedoms. What a shame! --=20 Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer