Message-ID: <3EA18BAA.2030204@thievco.com>
From: BlueBoar at thievco.com (Blue Boar)
Subject: RE: [ISN] DARPA pulls OpenBSD funding

Jason Coombs wrote:
>>"In the U.S., today, free speech is just a myth," de Raadt said.
> 
> This is an important issue because so many people get it completely wrong, de
> Raadt included.
> 
> Free speech means the government cannot put you in jail for the things you say
> or believe.

I disagree.  I have no way to know what the current legal definition of 
free speech is, or to what point the first ammendment has currently been 
eroded.  It says something to the effect of "Congress shall make no law" 
... "abridging the freedom of speech..."

I was taught that what that means is that my government doesn't get to 
limit what I say about my government.

> It does not mean the government is required to continue to pay you to do work
> or fund your projects regardless of the things that you say or believe.

Oh, I think it should.  Again, I can't say from a legal standpoint that it 
*does* mean they have to, but it should.  Why should the government be 
allowed to dictate someone's political speech with grants?  I'm pretty sure 
the first ammendment was designed to prevent exactly this sort of thing.

I suppose it's a little different if it's a private company.  For example, 
Microsoft could withdraw support for a book that they felt was criticising 
them too much.  It's probably not fair, but it's legal.

> It does not mean the government cannot create hardship for you, 

I think it does.  (Though withdrawing non-entitled funds does not 
neccessarily constitute "creating hardship".)  You think the government 
should be allowed to harrass people that say things it doesn't like at will?

> Further, the U.S. constitution does not apply to foreign nationals and it has
> no direct impact on business dealings except indirectly as it relates to the
> legislative process whereby State and Federal laws are enacted and enforced
> that seek to regulate business dealings consistent with constitutional law.

Theo may not have protection because he's not a US citizen.  However, the 
actual funding was pulled from a US university, if I'm understanding 
correctly.  So... funding was pulled from a US University because someone 
has an anti-war political opinion (that's still speculation, but it IS the 
principle under discussion.)

So the government *should* be able to pull (discretionary) funding at 
random from any group, if someone in power doesn't like the political 
opinion of anyone associated with that group?

Nice.

You don't think that this might have a slight chilling affect on groups 
that don't match well with the current party in power?  You don't think 
that might give a slight advantage to groups that are associated with the 
current party in power?

> We must bear in mind that free speech exists within a context of freedom; we
> cannot impose behavioral restrictions or affirmative obligations on government
> agencies or private parties that remove the freedom of those parties to
> exercise sound subjective judgment. The day that we impose government controls
> for allowable consequences against you for your choice to exercise your
> freedom of speech is the day we kill freedom in our effort to protect speech.

How about instead... for a case like this, we allow the funding decisions 
to be made on technical merit, and allow all parties involved to hold 
whatever political opinion they like?  Perhaps stop it just short of 
allowing the government to fund groups that are opening working towards 
violent overthrow or something?

By my thinking free speech means protecting speech you *don't* like.

						BB

Powered by blists - more mailing lists