On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Luis Villa <luis.villa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM, inode0 <inode0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Lyos Gemini Norezel >> <lyos.gemininorezel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Paul W. Frields wrote: >>> >>> Let me see if I can clarify a bit here. Your rights in the USA are >>> meant to be guarantees against the *government* stopping you from >>> speaking. Not private entities. >>> >>> True. >> >> Only to a point. Your natural rights, which are inalienable and >> universal, including liberty are not conferred on you by any >> government. The Fedora Project can quash your speech if it so chooses >> without violating your legal rights in the USA, but one can still >> argue with some merit that it violates your natural rights. > > You have no natural rights to enter someone else's creative community > and speak as you please, any more than you have natural rights to > enter someone's home and speak as you please. (Really, don't get me > started on this topic; I've got a degree in political philosophy and > am not afraid to use it ;) We have built/are building this community > in order to get things done; no one has any 'right' on any level to > disrupt that, and we should be very skeptical of anyone who thinks > they do. First, it isn't someone else's creative community. It is *our* creative community. Second, my statement was about quashing speech and there is no requirement that the quashed speech be in any way disruptive to anything in the context of what I said above. The Fedora Project can without violating my legal rights in the USA quash *all* of my speech on Fedora mailing lists. I was making a small objection to Paul's characterization of rights in the USA by omitting the existence of natural rights. Nothing more. John _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
