>From: Ruthanna R Gordon <rrgordon@ic.sunysb.edu>
>On Thu, 4 May 2000, Zero Powers wrote:
> > Surveillance has *nothing* to do with freedom. You are free now to do
> > anything that is legal. You would have that exact same freedom in a
> > completely transparent society. Your only loss of freedom would be the
> > freedom to commit a crime and get away with it. If you have a problem
>with
> > giving that up, I think that says more about you than it says about
>society.
>
>Yes. It says that my ideas of morality are not identical to those of our
>current lawmakers.
Morality is not the issue. Legality is. They are not synonyms.
> My current life partner is of the same gender as I am. Sometimes
>we hold hands when we are walking down the street. Sometimes, when no one
>else is around, I even kiss her. In many places, this is still listed as
>a crime.
I'm not saying every law on the books is a good law. What I am saying is,
if the law is bad, don't break it, work to get it changed (unless like
Martin Luther King you are breaking the law with an agenda).
But then for every rule there *is* an exception. Although I am married and
heterosexual, I am vehemently opposed to laws that proscribe the sexual
behavior of consenting adults. The laws against consensual homosexual acts
are downright wrong (IMO) and do not carry the moral authority to compel
obedience to them. The *only* good thing about such laws is the infrequency
of their enforcement.
I see such laws as being analogous to the 19th Century Supreme Court
decision that "no black man has any rights which any white man is obliged to
respect." I know that *some people* on this list will now take this as an
opportunity to show what a hypocrite I am. "You say, don't break the law,
but its OK to violate laws against sodomy?" All I can say is, for every
rule there is an exception. For me, sodomy is one of the few exceptions.
(Again, even though it is *not* a law that *I* have any personal desire to
violate. But for those who do, they can have at it with my blessing.)
> When I'm walking around with my friends, we often discuss
>possiblilities for the future--any and all, including futures in which the
>United States government no longer exists (we are none of us liable to act
>to further such a future, but it's awkward to insert disclaimers such as
>this one into all of our statements). This is definitely illegal.
That is absolutely *not* illegal. We can discuss here in writing such
possibilities with no fear of prosecution. It's called the 1st Amendment.
Unless when you *said* you "discuss futures in which the
United States government no longer exists" what you *meant* was "we
affirmatively advocate in our discussions the violent overthrow of the
government." In that case, yes, you would be breaking the law, and you
would do well to keep such discussions secret, transparent society or no.
(In other words, if that *is* what you meant, it would *not* be a good idea
to reply to this post by saying "yeah, that's exactly what I meant", if you
know what I mean.)
>It says that I don't like being watched under the assumption that I'm
>going to do something nasty. I don't like being stared at by policemen
>either. I particularly don't like being watched by people I can't
>see. This is a matter of aesthetic preference.
Well yes, that is a matter of personal preference. I personally don't mind
being stared at by cops. And I am not one to "straighten my posture" when I
know I'm being watched by authorities. But this confidence no doubt comes
from a keen awareness of the law and my rights under it. I know what I can
and cannot legally do, and I know what the cops can and cannot legally do to
me. However, such confidence comes from a level of diligence and vigilence
that, I admit, not everyone wishes to invest.
>While constraint of behavior is by no
>means equivalent to constraint of thought, the two do tend to go together
>psychologically. Certainly dialogue, or communicative behavior, is
>constrained. Furthermore, if people know the government is watching them
>at particular street-corners, they are likely to come into the habit of
>assuming surveilance elsewhere and modifying their behavior
>accordingly. Therefore surveilance is likely to, long-run, decrease the
>flow of new ideas in public, and the diversity of public
>appearance/behavior. This is not extropic.
I don't agree. I think it will lead to a lot more people paying closer
attention to what the laws provide so that they can govern themselves in
public with the kind of confidence I discussed above. Voluntarily modifying
your own behavior because you aren't sure of the law is the lazy person's
way of avoiding trouble with the law. *That* IMO is not extropic. Liberty
comes with a price, that price is responsibility. One responsibility of a
free citizen is to understand the law and (1) abide by it or (2) work to
change it.
Living in ignorance of the law, and then cowering in fear that you might
accidentally run afoul of it is not excuse enough for me to favor
constraining the right of the public or the government to detect criminal
behavior, even by the admittedly drastic means of surveillance. But I do
recognize that, as in most things, your mileage may vary.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:52 MDT