Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
FSF, RMS Issue Statements Over Libreboot's Accusations
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by unixfan2001 View PostFreedom of speech doesn't apply to private communication between individuals.
More interesting is the fact Leah is crazed enough to apply freedom of speech in halfassy way. She calls the names of the "offenders" and takes quite some efforts to attack 'em, but conceals details about "victim" using bulling prevention as excuse.
For me it looks like it could violate rights of mentioned persons the following way:
- Assuming someone is guilty without proving that in court.
- Discrimination based on gender/status in regard of who should have freedom of speech and who should not. Obviously "victim" gets elevated rights.
To make it worse, no satisfactory proof has been represented ever. So what if preception of "bully" and "victim" would turn out to be just a matter of personal preferences of Leah, for example?
People are free to tell you to shut up, just as they are free to not listen to you in the first place.
When will people learn this? Unless the government is standing on your porch because someone doesn't like what you're saying, your freedom of speech is undisturbed
Comment
-
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostDon't you mind I only had chance to refer to public speeches, in first place? So even if this statement is true, it going to be completely irrelevant. Phoronix is public forum, mailing list is public either.
From a purely legal standpoint, you are still a guest in someone else's PRIVATE property. So yes, you can be asked to gtfo if you do something the owner does not agree with, and yes, you are expected to comply, just as you would as if you were in a physical place.
There are laws that impose the owner to ban from his forum the usual things, racism, discrimination, child porn and whatever other illegal stuff (or face the consequences himself), but no laws that impose the owner to let everyone say whatever.
Public places in that sense (i.e. places where you can use free speech, as long as you aren't too annoying anyway) are usually physical places like a street or a plaza or whatever where the place is actually owned by the state or something. Also state-owned forums should theoretically apply, if the state isn't smart enough to have them run by a third party so they can be policied properly without risk of raising free speech issues.
More interesting is the fact Leah is crazed enough to apply freedom of speech in halfassy way.
For me it looks like it could violate rights of mentioned persons the following way:
- Assuming someone is guilty without proving that in court.
- Discrimination based on gender/status in regard of who should have freedom of speech and who should not. Obviously "victim" gets elevated rights.
Technically speaking she is acting correctly towards the "victim" (not revealing the name), while acting very wrong towards the other guys.
Imho discrimination makes the bolded part a more severe offence, but it isn't self-sustaining.
IANAL, btw, so don't take that as legal advice.
I conclude Leah gone rampant and can't be argued with at all. Somehow I believe its Leah fault. Total inability to control self and being deaf to what other humans are telling is an issue.
It is a bit scary tho that happened overnight without much warning that she was unstable.
It's like zombies, people that suddenly turn brain-eating monsters.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostNope, both forum and mailing list are NOT public places in that sense. They are private places that are open to the pubblic to come in and are technically unmoderated/uncensored, not the same thing.
From a purely legal standpoint, you are still a guest in someone else's PRIVATE property. So yes, you can be asked to gtfo if you do something the owner does not agree with, and yes, you are expected to comply, just as you would as if you were in a physical place.
There are laws that impose the owner to ban from his forum the usual things, racism, discrimination, child porn and whatever other illegal stuff (or face the consequences himself), but no laws that impose the owner to let everyone say whatever.
Public places in that sense (i.e. places where you can use free speech, as long as you aren't too annoying anyway) are usually physical places like a street or a plaza
Either way, I do not believe boasting double standards where e.g. Leah is allowed to speak whatever and those she attacks without posting any proof are only allowed to be bullied that way is a correct way to go, especially in opensource world. Fighting for equal rights is one thing. Fighting for elevated rights and crippling others rights to make them second class citizens is entirely different thing. And when some ppl do not know where to stop, one turns into another. Horrors, oppression and unjust judgement takes place. Somehow I've got impression it is exactly the case. Since some groups of people are very prone to this kind of attitude, maybe it explains why many ppl who do not belong these groups are negative about these groups. Ppl like Leah who are so prone to going rampant on each and every opportunity are just troublesome.
or whatever where the place is actually owned by the state or something. Also state-owned forums should theoretically apply, if the state isn't smart enough to have them run by a third party so they can be policied properly without risk of raising free speech issues.
I'd say it's applied in a batshit insane way, just saying.
imho bolded part is the main one and can be used in court to auto-win any defamation cases.
Technically speaking she is acting correctly towards the "victim" (not revealing the name), while acting very wrong towards the other guys.
Either way it is AFAIK illegal to call other person criminal without actually proving it in court FIRST. So if court rules out these definitions of "offenders" and "victim" are correct, I'm fine with it. But it is not up to Leah to decide. And I think it is perfectly valid for other readers to demand proof if there're some accusions of something. Just accusions and personal attacks without proof is really unacceptable behavior.
Imho discrimination makes the bolded part a more severe offence, but it isn't self-sustaining.
IANAL, btw, so don't take that as legal advice.
It's like zombies, people that suddenly turn brain-eating monsters.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostEither way, I do not believe boasting double standards where e.g. Leah is allowed to speak whatever and those she attacks without posting any proof are only allowed to be bullied that way is a correct way to go, especially in opensource world.
Eventually, after a long while you can start to treat them like spambots or low-grade trolls (what they are), and simply ban them on sight, but must be done after they have really pissed off everyone.
Sounds like attempt to work around freedom of speech and replace it by some vague "policies" pushed by some questionable entities seeking for questionable goals. Which shouldn't be "smart" but rather "illegal".
Everyone can policy the shit out of his forum while a state cannot. Free speech is old and was not designed with internet in mind (internet = extremely high concentration of kiddies and idiots), decent-sized forums need to be policied and moderated or they become like 4chan.
Really, if you play by the rules a state-owned forum can't be moderated. That is bad.
If laws are flawed, state is better to take efforts to correct these laws, isn't it?
I'm honestly surprised to learn FSF isn't like this even when attacked such a strong way.
What would you choose?
OTOH FSF ppl insist there was no "discrimination" and person has been fired for different reasons.
"Discrimination based on gender/status in regard of who should have freedom of speech and who should not. "
This is just an accessory of the
"Assuming someone is guilty without proving that in court."
if we go by legal ways.
Also these are indirect indicators and it could be plain wrong.
Sure you can see how good person are each of the parties but this means jack, without evidence you can't know.
Speaking for myself I do not get why they can't just calm down.
Or if it absolutely fails to work, uhm, ok, let's prove accusions in court to see if it is a case.
Even if we ignore for a moment that going by court would likely end up very badly for Leah, showing everyone how the FSF attacks another opensource developer, and also how they win and turn it into a slave to pay fines is probably just as bad a PR hit as Leah being actually right and finding out that they did have some transophobes in there.
Really, Leah hasn't done any real damage to FSF, and the more she talks the worse it goes for her, and the better it goes for FSF.
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostNo, this is the right procedure with high-profile rampant idiots. You let them vent in public and show off how rampant and idiot they are,..
Everyone can policy the shit out of his forum while a state cannot.
Free speech is old and was not designed with internet in mind (internet = extremely high concentration of kiddies and idiots), decent-sized forums need to be policied and moderated or they become like 4chan.
Really, if you play by the rules a state-owned forum can't be moderated. That is bad.
Changing laws requires a very significant effort, it may not even be possible in the current political situation, and all they needed is a forum, not trying to fix all the garbage in the laws.
That's the proper procedure for high-profile situations. All this can be dealt with by making Leah a martyr by banning her and whatever, or by letting her show off to everyone she is a complete idiot.
What would you choose?
Don't try to find out the truth about this matter, unless someone publishes some material, there is nothing to work on.
Sure you can see how good person are each of the parties but this means jack, without evidence you can't know.
Leah won't. It's normal, when an idiot is triggered like that he can go on forever.
Really, Leah hasn't done any real damage to FSF, and the more she talks the worse it goes for her, and the better it goes for FSF.
Comment
-
I see a number of very troublesome things stemming from this accusation overall, so I am just going to cut them into individual sections and attempt to address each of them.
Hearsay
Ultimately because the one making the grand guestures and public accusations against the FSF and it's members isn't directly the one involved, and is just a 'friend' of the supposed victim, what Leah is accusing the FSF and it's members of, is subject entirely to what the supposed victim chose to tell Leah, which distances the truth a step further because Leah isn't directly expressing her own experiences but instead working off of what she has been told.
Weaponizing projects
Regardless of the intent, by divorcing libreboot from FSF/GNU and listing demands that must be met before libreboot will rejoin FSF/GNU, what Leah in effect is doing is taking the weight of her assets and attempting to use them, along with the work of the projects contributers, as leverage to have her demands met without proper investigation or any actual evidence being presented, with the implication that not meeting the demand in some way shows the FSF/GNU to be transphobic or unwelcoming for trans people.
This is frankly the adult version of "it's my bat and ball and if you don't let me keep <chosen role> then i'm taking them inside!".
Name and shame
The descision to hide the "victims" identity while openly listing the accused identities without giving any tangible evidence shows that this is not to be a fair trial but one geared specifically towards public outrage and reactionary social justice, where asking for evidence is considered on par with victim blaming, further establishes a one sided groundwork commonly used in social justice circles to assert guilt without actual evidence, pressuring those involved to denounce those who are accused or face the possibility of being tarred with the same brush.
This is all to commonly used a tactic, and one all too commonly successful when employed through social media, which is likely why Leah wants to kick up as big of a storm about this as possible, as the larger the audience, the more effective the tactic becomes.
Contradictions
So initially we have the claim that the victim was fired for being trans, despite the fact that throughout her time working with FSF, she had always been trans, which is debunked by Leah herself moments later in the initial accusation by bringing up the bullying, asserting that FSF fired the victim after she stood up for herself against two bullies. The lack of any evidence of either suggests that these are just being used as targets against FSF because 'the more targets you have the higher the chance of landing a hit'.
In my personal opinion, no action should be taken unless tangible evidence is provided to support the claims - these essentially stem from claims of bullying and the victim being fired for standing up for herself, which suggests then that both the bullying and defense of said bullying were done through a medium where logs would be accessible - if bullying occured and the claims the victim makes are true, then holding back such evidence makes absolutely no sense, a log showing the abuse would be a heck of a lot more effective.
From what I can make out, and what seems most likely is, the victim through one reason or another was let go from the FSF, angry at this development confided in Leah with the assumption that it was entirely down to being trans, and the mess what we have now is the result, somewhere in between the two sharing their experiences, the victim being fired and the anger at FSF, I suspect a degree of embelishment of the truth took place and the subconcious desire to either shame FSF into re-hiring the victim, or at the very least, having the two who supposidly bullied the supposed victim fired become the end goal.
So again, it's my belief that no action should be taken unless tangible evidence is presented to back up the claims, caving to Leah's current demands without evidence opens up the floodgates for rampant abuse and exploitation by those willing to play such a system to negatively impact the lives of those they dislike or disagree with, or for personal gain at the cost of the truth.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostIsrael is basically a nazi-state that is actively deporting non-jews to expand in the region because Zod Wants It. I fail to see the connection here.
Comment
-
About the FSF quote, I think this paragraph should have been quoted:
It is part of our job to celebrate and improve the diversity of the free software world. We have strong anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies to help provide a safe and supportive working environment. We uphold a safe space policy at all FSF events, and we provide scholarships to help people of different identities, and from different regions, attend. The FSF's mission is to defend the freedom of all computer users.
Comment
Comment