Proposal for ML conduct

[inode0]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM, Luis Villa <luis.villa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:35 AM, inode0 <inode0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Lyos Gemini Norezel
>> <lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com> 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