Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Freedom of Information

Freedom of Information

IrC - 14-8-2005 at 08:31

Sandmeyer; if freedom of information were so sacred to the members and admin of this board I would not feel pressured to come here and defend myself against a verbal assault on me by you in another thread. But I know if I say anything there someone will come in and complain that the conversation is "off topic". So where is the freedom of information in this? The word hypocrite comes to mind when the word freedom really implies "free" only so long as it stays within the guidelines of someone else. And if this thread is deleted then I imagine freedom is only free so long as it fits in the guidelines put forth by the ruling oligarchy.

Sandmeyer's comments:
---------------------------------------------
Originally posted by IrC
"For myself, while I believe in freedom of information I would not put up drug or explosive making information for the general public"

Then you don't believe in "freedom of information". Besides a tremendous body of information regarding both explosives and psychotechnologies is allready out in the litterature and noone can do anyting to put the genie back in the bottle.

quote:

"as a responsible science minded person I would not aid in helping drugmaker's murder our children nor would I wish to help terrorists (or disturbed children) commit mass murder."

Funny, it's obvious that you have been affected by corporte media whose purpose is not to spread the "freedom of infromation" but quite the opposite - to tell you what to think. I suggest you to get informed about the workings of the system you live in.
------------------------------------------------------------

First off freedom of information does not mean you go tell your enemy how to do you harm. Corporate media? How about real world life experience, something I rather doubt you posess. I came out of the drug culture of the 60's and 70's and I saw my share of people die shooting up the rat poison made by others. One day I took a child to see a movie at a mall in downtown Phoenix, and as we were leaving 4 innocent people in the parking lot where hit by bullets spewed out by gangbangers shooting it out over their freedom to sell the illegal drugs they made. Freedom does not imply that total anarchy is necessary for others to be free. What the hell does the workings of the "corporate media" have to do with my comments which are based in real life experience and knowledge? How about this, in 20 years in downtown Phoenix I watched people shot at and murdered by the drug gangs roaming the streets. I witnessed death and violence on a scale unprecedented in U.S. history.

It does not matter if the genie is already out of the bottle, I still have the right to choose not to add to the mayhem without fear of being accused of being "brainwashed" by anyone. I merely respond to what I have learned and know to be true, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

We all have to live with the results of the things we have done in our lives, and I choose not to be responsible for arming those who would do harm to the innocent with the knowledge of destruction. There is actually a precedent for people to discuss science without giving out information to others who could use that information to do harm. How can you even speak of "freedom" when I express my "freedom" to not add to the mayhem you choose to attack me personally for feeling this way. If freedom were really free in your small mind as you claim it is you would respect my "freedom" to choose not to be responsible for the spread of dangerous information. Just as I would respect your "freedom" to go out and plaster it all over the internet.

So here we have an oxymoron coming from you samdmeyer. I say I will not put up an FTP filled with such information and you choose to attack me in public for my views. Where is the "freedom" in this? Oh, I see, "freedom" only applies so long as it fits into YOUR viewpoint right?

I have seen firsthand the death and violence caused by information being in the hands of the wrong people. How you can construe my choice not to add to the mayhem is somehow related to "corporate brainwashing" I cannot imagine.

12AX7 - 14-8-2005 at 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
So here we have an oxymoron coming from you samdmeyer. I say I will not put up an FTP filled with such information and you choose to attack me in public for my views. Where is the "freedom" in this?

IrC,

The "freedom" in this, is his right to bitch and whine at will. As is yours, as shown in detail by your lengthy post.

As for the politics, are you two even in the same *country*? Isn't that rather pointless to argue? (That's like all the bullshit about Europeans trying to convince Americans to vote for Kerry! What kind of tretchary is that!?)

Tim

vulture - 14-8-2005 at 11:13

Means, motive, opportunity.

Science only supplies the means.

IrC - 14-8-2005 at 17:43

This is all very true. I see a difference between supplying books such as a college chemistry book and a short "how to" written with no other purpose than telling some mentally disturbed individual how to go blow me up. I suppose what got me irked was being told I had been brainwashed by the corporate media merely because I stated my personal opinion that I myself would not host such a site. As example, I would never register or post at E&W, or sites like the hive, but I see nothing wrong with this site, since this site tries to focus on the love of pure science (most of the time anyway).

I can think of any number of posts I have looked at in the forum below this one, where Vulture or Polverone looked at a post and right then moved it on down where it belongs, in the waste bin. Typically these threads begin with stupid questions such as "if I mix a pound of crack with a pound of C4 will it blow up twice as fast?". You get the point. As I stated somewhere around here I am glad some things are up even though I would not put them up as it adds to my library, and even though many of them are things I would never experiment with, often there is other information which can be learned from them that could have applications in a more useful endeavor (at least to me). An example here could be a new way to reduce an element that I had not learned anywhere else, and I can even supply a real world example of this. The glow powders I play with (as I write this my kiln just got up to 1,000 C) come to mind. If the europium is not reduced from a plus three to a plus two, nada, no glow, no nothing.

But in all the patents out there they do this by running hydrogen gas through their kiln while it is over 2,000 degrees F. I can tell you as a do it yourself mad scientist that this is harder than shit to do safely with home built equipment, if not impossible. But I have learned electrochemical ways of doing the reduction, where then I only need to keep O2 from getting in while the powders are glowing in the kiln, to prevent them from getting oxidised. This is safer and much easier to do.

Anyway the whole point is while I am not some crusader who is going to go out and try shutting down all the sites I see putting up dangerous information, I also am not going to be one of those who supply it, and I saw no reason for sandmeyer to accuse me of being brainwashed just because I stated my personal preference on the subject. To each their own. Rather than interrupt the book thread I just decided to start one here where I could verbally bitchslap sandmeyer while not upsetting people by doing so there. In fact I do not wish to detract from what is becoming a great thread on this site mostly do to so much work by ayush in putting up links to so many great chemistry books.

I have no idea how his request to put them all up on one of the FTP's turned into a fight over opinions. Something about someone asking me to set up a site with links to everything and my comments about why I would not want to. Besides, there is already two really good FTP's going with much more room to spare, so another one is not needed anyway.

Organikum - 15-8-2005 at 05:41

Your problem is that you don´t have the balls to write Sandmeier a PM it seems to me as what you want is long since established on this board.

So your problem is not a SCM problem but a "you and he" problem. Treat it accordingly I suggest.

wa gwan - 15-8-2005 at 11:21

-----
Contrasting Russian and US approach to WOD

US Drug Policy

In New York State, 30,000 people a year are indicted for drug felonies. Although New York's drug laws were supposedly instituted to crack down on drug "kingpins," the vast majority of drug offenders are not "kingpins" or managers in drug trafficking and distribution operations. Most prisoners serving sentences for drug crimes are people who possess drugs for their own use, low level sellers, or couriers. The sentence for drug felonies is based solely on the amount of the drug possessed or sold without any consideration of the offender's level of involvement. Under New York's drug laws, drug "mules," making one-time deliveries, and managers in major drug distribution networks are sentenced in the same felony class.
Since judges cannot take individual offenders circumstances into account in sentencing, the only way to receive a lower sentence is to cooperate with the prosecution. However, those who are in the best position to provide information about the drug trade are those who are the most heavily involved. As a result, Low-level offenders often end up serving longer sentences because they have little or no information to provide the prosecution. http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/newyork/rockefellerd/...

><

The 1997 Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information addresses a number of legal issues involved in limiting the dissemination of bombmaking information. Although the subject of the report was the dissemination of a different type of information, its legal analysis can be applied to the dissemination of information that facilitates drug crimes. The first issue to be discussed is whether the government can restrict the dissemination of information simply because it advocates the production, use, or distribution of controlled substances. This issue has been addressed by many courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, which clearly have ruled that any attempt to prohibit the dissemination of such information would violate First Amendment rights.

A second issue is whether the government can restrict the dissemination of lawfully obtained information that could be used by others to illegally manufacture, use, or distribute controlled substances. The answer to this issue is not as clear. However, courts often have held that if such public information is widely distributed to a large, unidentified audience, it cannot be restricted by the government without infringing on First Amendment rights.
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/civil_rights/speech/speech_inf...

><

Russian Drug Policy

In 2004, Russia effectively decriminalized small possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use. Signed by President Vladimir Putin, the legislation sets out administrative fines or community service for possession of no more than 10 times the amount of a "single dose" of drugs.
http://www.dpf.org/global/drugpolicyby/asia/russia/

><

Russia’s anti-drug agency Gosnarkokontrol is set to combat propaganda of drugs on the Web, the deputy head of the federal agency, General-Lieutenant Oleg Kharichkin, told the Interfax news agency.

“We have studied the situation on the Internet in what concerns advertising sites and sites focused on propaganda of narcotic substances and recipes for making drugs. Today there are over 700 such sites on the Web, operating both in Russia and abroad. We are set to launch talks with Internet providers because they are able to shut down certain sites that are damaging to the public,” Kharichkin said.
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/04/14/drugsweb.shtml

-----

It's interesting how the two former adversaries still take opposing approaches to the same problem with the US heavily penalizing minor drug offenders while upholding the right of individuals to disseminate information about criminal activities in contrast to Russia liberalizing penalties for low level drug crime while trying to control its citizens access to such information.

....Don't you think Comrade IrC?

IrC - 15-8-2005 at 16:00

So the point is what? I state that I myself would not supply such information on moral grounds. So one person calls me brainwashed. Another says I have no balls for not just sending a PM and refuting the public attack privately Why? If I am attacked in public then all you so called freedom loving people should not have a problem in my defending myself in public should you. Or is there really a double standard in existence here, however thinly veiled it is.

Then another comes in and implies that I am a socialist because I have my own moral code, accusing me of supporting the government attacks against the freedom of information just because I have my own personal preferences. I think before anyone speaks they should take a careful look at all aspects to see the truth before deciding they know what they think is being said.

Of course there also is the fact that one reason a person cannot see the truth is due to the fact that there is no truth in them.

12AX7 - 15-8-2005 at 16:32

Quote:

Originally posted by IrC
Another says I have no balls for not just sending a PM and refuting the public attack privately Why? If I am attacked in public then all you so called freedom loving people should not have a problem in my defending myself in public should you. Or is there really a double standard in existence here, however thinly veiled it is.

Indeed.

The usual internet (and real life) reason for bringing attention to a situation, rather than covering it privately, is to restore, inflate, or masturbate your ego in public and bring attention not so much to the subject as to yourself! Keep this in mind.

Tim

chemoleo - 15-8-2005 at 17:23

Quote:

The usual internet (and real life) reason for bringing attention to a situation, rather than covering it privately, is to restore, inflate, or masturbate your ego in public and bring attention not so much to the subject as to yourself! Keep this in mind.

That's very interesting coming from you. Weren't you the morale apostle, 'ruthlessly and bravely' eradicating all oppression, condemning any sort of 'inhumanity' (to quote) in favour of crappy senseless 'information' (aka posts), and yet now you think all those principled high-on-their-horses people need a good slapping to calm down?

Also, didnt you continuosly criticise people for not being 'nice' enough? Looks to me you have learned a lesson on sarcasm and cynicism - and I am glad you learned

Anyway.... IrC I wouldnt take all this too seriously.
Freedom of speech has been discussed ad nauseam here, in various threads. That may explain why you don't get the response you thought you might. I think that's what Org's been referring to.

Thing is, IrC, there are many instances of where one might consider withholding information from the public for the public good. The question is, who is to decide, and how far is that to go?

Personally, my very obscure view on this is - information as such is free. It should be. If humanity kills itself as a result of the very free information, then it deserves no other. Darwinian I suppose

Essentially, withholding information amounts to as much trouble as charging people with being responsible for withholding it in the first place. It's a fine line, and I don't know where do draw it.
To end this random rant - get rid of nationalism/patriotism, and religion, and you got rid of most of the worlds diseases. Other than humans themselves.
Utopia that is, I know

And completely and utterly unrealistic.

[Edited on 16-8-2005 by chemoleo]

IrC - 15-8-2005 at 18:23

chemoleo, no doubt you are right on more than one level (or thing). As far as information terrorists could use, I have no doubt many of them were already trained in mostly US universities with student visas and government subsidies anyway, and as such probably have more information than that which they could find on internet sites. Not to mention the fact they got their degrees using my tax dollars from the same government which has always taken my money but never once given me any free education or even medical care for that matter. So I suppose my own reason for cautious disemination of information is more aimed at the stupid JR High school kids whos parents never bothered to supervise their internet activities in the first place. For what it's worth.

The only other point I would make is I did not understand the inference here about my views on SCM and what has been long established, since it never entered my mind other than the fact I had already stated the reason I saw no problem with SCM WAS the fact that the focus here was on real science rather than on drugs and explosives to the exclusion of all else. Oh well, I guess everyone sees what they read in their own eyes even when they are all looking at the same thing. I am sure ego had nothing to do with it though.

Sandmeyer - 16-8-2005 at 07:18

Recently I have finally concluded that it best not to engage in pointlessly endless discussions, it's a waste of time and energy that can be devoted to more productive things. But, I have been asked by someone to reply to the comments in this thread.

Unfortunately, iRC repeatedly claims that I've attacked him, is there any indication that I'm aggressor and he victim? He can't mean what he say. He claims that he is in favour of 'freedom of information' while in the same sentence say that the information regarding 'drugs' and explosives should be kept away from general public. This is to my logic rather in favour of selective censorship of some obviously controversial subjects. It is contra-productive at best and very harmful at worst to keep away the unbiased information about drugs (aspects both good and bad) from the general public and replace it with irrational beliefs and propaganda such: "drugs kill our children" and to say no more, nor to propose a solution other than put people behind bars for NOTHING - well this is the reality of today. In a society that completely depends on drugs, unbiased information about drugs is a must. The bad consequences of 'drugs' iRC mentions (shootings, crime, people in jail) is always blamed on white powder, this is irrational, it is the system that that brings to our society shootings, crime, people in jail and misery, it is the system that is destructive and needs to be changed -- drugs are no more evil than cars. Drugs have been used by man since ancient times and only recently have ’they’ become an issue and symbol of evil, which is ironical in a way considering the fact that we all are users of some kind of a drug.

Freedom of information does not only include by the power-to-be-approved information. To make the idiocy of it even more obvious - what is controversial in one country is not in another. Neither does this freedom mean that the information regarding certain technology should be only in hands of a few people, such information should be available to everyone or else there is no progress towards benefit of all. What if the scientists kept their discoveries and ideas to themselves, or only gave them to their corporate masters or military? In that case the technology would be a tool of enslavement and destruction rather than enlightenment and cultural evolution. Unless you can rise your self to a point where you realise that there is no evil information and to abolish a view that a only a power elite (vast minority of population of this planet) are worth of possessing certain information I find it pointless to take the discussion any further - we then might as well watch cowboys vs. Indians on fox news.

Polverone - 16-8-2005 at 19:07

You can believe in freedom of speech and yet refrain from saying offensive or controversial things because of the effects you believe your speech would have. There's no hypocrisy or contradiction in that. All IrC has said is that he would not be the one to provide certain kinds of information. That is a far cry from trying to impose censorship on others. If some random person messages me on AIM "hey how can I make a big explosion" I'm not going to help him. Yet this site and its contents are a monument to how much I enjoy the sharing of information (even "dangerous" information) in general. We all draw the line somewhere.

Sandmeyer - 16-8-2005 at 23:45

Quote:

There's no hypocrisy or contradiction in that. All IrC has said is that he would not be the one to provide certain kinds of information.

My reaction was based on his outrageous political motives as a reason for not providing information of that kind: "For myself, while I believe in freedom of information I would not put up drug or explosive making information for the general public" and "I would not aid in drugmaker's murder our children nor would I wish to help terrorists (or disturbed children) commit mass murder"

He has obvioulsy not reflected over whether it is his own government or disturbed children respinsible for commitment of mass murder. Nor has he understood that "drugmakers" don't "kill our children" but the consequences of the laws imposed by the good-guys in suits along with national flags behind them.

Never have I said that it his obligation to provide any knid of information. I have only stated what I think would happen if majority of scientists shared his view.

Quote:

If some random person messages me on AIM "hey how can I make a big explosion" I'm not going to help him.

Geine is, as allready said, allready out of the bottle never to be put back again. Only psychotechnologies can allow us to use all other technologies wisely. But I agree, I would not waste my time on such question either, especially since there is plenty of info on the subject to be found in the library. I would not reply to someone asking how to mix red phosphorus, iodine and ephedrine either, not because i think meth is 'public enemy', but simply because people who ask such questions simply don't give a shit about lerning organic chemistry, so thts't where my lines goes.

Quote:

That is a far cry from trying to impose censorship on others.

To impose and be in favour are two different things. (but i could be wrong whether he was in favour of such thing or not, only he knows)

Every action in universe has some consequences, you can see petrol in your car that takes you to school as a source of much armed conflict and killing in the world, but to have these basis for not sharing information about say cracking of hydrocarbons is in my opinion complealy irrational and I have said what i wanted to say. What if founders of organic chemistry wished (for personal or political reasons) not to share their discoveries with others? Of course they have the every right not to, but I can still disagree with that, and they would by hypocrite to read other scientist's generously offered work while not sharing their own. No man is an island.

[Edited on 17-8-2005 by Sandmeyer]