Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602041710120.7275 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602041630410.7275 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602041710120.7275 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Message-Id: <f788acd52ad398f9a46c6f14d3103252 &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 01:07:02 -0500
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Dave Morris <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: view the infamous cartoons, support free speech, buy legos
Status: O

I'm okay with having them up- but you should put a paragraph in the 
directory or wherever people will hit letting them know why they're up 
there, and have a general section of your web page titled "censorship 
is bad", and there put up this and anything that seems to be getting 
censored anywhere, including- if it comes up and gets censored, 
cartoons of Jesus raping a four year old. As Erica said, there are lots 
of things getting censored that we should be fighting- like publication 
of the number of Muslim's we have in secret prison right now being held 
without trail or recourse, simply because they're Muslim. Even if, as 
Kevin says, you can find them elsewhere, I think spreading information, 
making it easier to find, is a valuable service. As long as that's the 
reason it's being spread. I wouldn't use your webpage for political 
statements against Muslims or even the KKK or any specific people. You 
shouldn't put them up because terrorists blew up an embassy any more 
than you should put up the Jesus picture because Bush bombed Iraq or 
the kkk killed some gay people. Indicting an entire people, be it a 
religion, country, or whatever, because of the actions of a few is of 
course irrational and unwise, and that line of though leads to things 
like blowing up embassies. Kind of circular. Which leads to things like 
the middle east. Hmm.

You also may want to consider potential backlash of using your UofM 
webpage for inflammatory material that strong political action groups 
may take offense to or act on. The repercussions may exceed the value- 
even if it's as simple as CAEN suddenly remembering that you're no 
longer a student and shutting down your access sooner than they would 
otherwise. :-) (this is a general caveat to the fighting censorship web 
page idea, which could involve many things worse than this)

Actually I find it very interesting what people consider it acceptable 
to censor, and from whom?
For example, I'm okay with limiting young children's access to material 
containing certain types of violence until they're at least a certain 
age. I disagree with how much we censor from children sexuality (except 
where it involves violence, which much modern pornography does), but I 
agree with requiring labeling that allows people to self-censer based 
on their own preferences or their preferences for their children. In 
another example I also could be okay with censoring some types of 
reporting where it's clearly biased with no counter- like news reports 
pretending to present facts but blatantly lying to accomplish a 
political objective. Even forcing truth in advertising is a form of 
censorship, and we do that, kind of, sometimes. Where is it okay? Where 
is it not? It's an interesting question without, I think, a perfectly 
clear answer.

Dave


On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> And by the way, I'm completely serious about this. I think this is a 
> way that improvetheworld can literally improve the world.
>
> Also, please don't be shy about chiming in on this.  Once the first 
> message is sent it's really no more burden for people to delete the 
> whole thread (as long as you leave the subject line intact).
>
>
> (PS, I can see from the web logs that lots of you have viewed the 
> pictures already so don't pretend you're not listening! :)
>
>
> --- \/   FROM Daniel Reeves AT 06.02.04 17:03 (Today)   \/ ---
>
>> A Danish newspaper recently published cartoons depicting Mohammed and 
>> muslims as terrorists.  Muslims are up in arms about it.  In fact, 
>> they've burnt down the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria, as a 
>> start.
>>
>> It's all over the news but no US newspaper has the backbone to print 
>> the cartoons.  I guess terrorism works. So this is an opportunity to 
>> fight for free speech by helping make sure the agenda of the radical 
>> religious right backfires.  And so, improvetheworld brings you:
>>
>>  http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/itw/mohammed
>>    (or google improvetheworld)
>>
>> Oh, and since muslims are calling for boycotts of Danish products in 
>> response to those cartoons, you should also buy more Danish stuff.  
>> Like Legos.
>>
>> <ducking>,
>> Danny
>
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"
>
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
Senior Engineer, ElectroDynamic Applications, Inc.
morris &AElig edapplications.com, (734) 786-1434, fax: (734) 786-3235