[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Results for General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations

Le Monday 29 December 2008 17:21:16 Theodore Tso, vous avez écrit :
> I do feel quite strongly, that aspirational goals, if they are going
> to be in Foundation Documents, must be clearly *labelled* as
> aspirational goals, and not as inflexible mandates that _MUST_ be
> kept.  In politics, can have aspirational ideals such as "a chicken in
> every pot and two cars in every garage" which get used in campaign
> slogans, but you don't put such things as a MUST in a country's
> constitution.

Freedom of speech is a constitutional disposition, and I don't think it is 
something that could be acheive. It really is a constitutional act. 

It is also why I am against the Code of Conduct. Freedom of speech is an 
utopism that I support for Debian, and a Code of Conduct, or whatever you 
call it, is a way to shut those who do abid to the politically-correctness 
way of expressing oneself.

As Orwell noticed it 50 years ago, restricting expressiveness is also 
restricting though. When someone shocks you with a broomstick, a Teletubies 
or a ironic picture, it breaks the lines and helps to reconsider you thoughs 

More generally, the Human Rights is also a list of idealistic acheivements. 
However, it is a fundamental document at the United Nations for instance.

From time to time, people complain about the unrealistic consequences of them, 
such as our foreign minister here, but still they remain central in every 

To transpose the discussion, how would you argue in the same debate, but about 
utopism generated by the Human Rights ? That Guantanamo was a pragmatic need 
to the USA to protect themselves ? That torturing people in Algeria was a 
pragmatic need for the french people ? (*)

Yes, I am exagerating, but adding bit of utopism is more then only stating its 
good will to someday probably perhaps do something about that.


(*) Please note that I am not insinuating that you are pro-guantanamo :)

Reply to: