On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 12/7/05, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
It may come as a surprise to you, but many of us
on the list are not
Americans, and we find that kind of attitude deeply offensive. It may
be true enough that the specific provisions of UK law may not be
interesting to most of us, but if you substite the Wikipedian's own
country for UK the resulting total will not be insignificant. This is
precisely the kind of arrogant attitude that goes into the image of the
"Ugly American".
The fact that Wikipedia's servers are primarily in the United States
naturally caries certain legal implications. We all know that. That
the law of the United States is in any way superior is not one of those
implications. Sometime we would appreciate a little less bushshit, and
more of a recognition that the United States is only one country in the
same world as the rest of us.
Dude, get the chip off your shoulder already.
Didn't you write in another email in this same thread
It would be advisable for the Wikimedia Foundation
to avoid
establishing a legal presence within the jurisdiction of countries
which lack adequate protections for free speech, however.
To rephrase an old saying about Computer Operating systems, legal
protection of free speech in all countries suck, they just suck in
different ways. (And then some countries don't bother with offering
any protection, which sucks even more.) I think it's fair to say that
the U.S. has done a better job in the past of protecting free speech
than it does now; & I hope that it does a better job of it in the
future. That being said, we US citizens are not in the position at
the moment to start throwing stones.
I considered a direct response to Kelly, but the comment was so glib,
facile and out-of-character that doing so would have served no useful
purpose. On top of that, Anthony, who had inspired my outburst, already
appeared to grasp where I was coming from.
Each of us is ultimately responsible for safeguarding his own free
speech, even in a country where the trappings of free speech are
superb. Perhaps more so when those trappings give an illusion of
safety. Free speech when exercised at an unfortunate place and time can
be too easily characterised as conspiracy.
Depending solely on the legal protection provided for free speech in a
single country is poor strategy. In the freest country that can change
with frightening rapidity. For the moment the protection provided
elsewhere may appear inferior, but in certain times of crisis that will
be better than nothing.
Ec