Re: Censorship in Debian
On Friday, January 04, 2019 01:34:41 PM Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 01:39:27PM +0100, Christian Kastner wrote:
> >On 21/12/2018 01.27, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> >> We are not a Government.
> >
> >We don't have a _Sovereign_ Government, but a Government we most
> >certainly have.
> >
> >We are a body of people bound by a Constitution; this body has
> >Officials acting on its behalf; we vote to represent our interests; we
> >delegate powers; we subject ourselves to powers, etc.
>
> Only for very limited areas. Debian does not have the power to tell us
> how to live outside of our collaboration with Debian. It's a very
> limited organisation. The worst censure that can be applied is to be
> removed from that organisation. That does not compare to the possible
> removal of liberty (or even life!) that is amongst a Government's
> powers.
>
> >> Please don't conflate Debian ensuring we have a healthy community
> >> with Government censorship,
> >
> >This action was not performed by the community, but by an Official
> >acting Debian's behalf. Consequently, it _was_ government censorship.
>
> Rubbish. A refusal by Debian to publish on somebody's behalf is not at
> all the same as government censorship. A government can remove the
> right to publish at all.
If censorship isn't the right word (and at best, it's not ideal), what's the
right word for the chilling effect on willingness to speak in public due to
the risk of being ejected from an organization like Debian?
Perhaps if we can get past "it's not censorship" and say what it is, then we
can make some progress.
Note that I'm not talking about refusing to republish (I know what that is).
I'm talking about declining to speak based on concern about disproportionate
reaction from our leadership/delegates for doing so (I'm also not arguing that
did or didn't happen in any recent situation - I am trying to see if there is
some consensus to be found on at least how to talk about it).
Scott K
Reply to: