Politics is not harmless.
I've been watching the controversy over certain alleged fetishes of Secure Computing's chief blacklister. From one perspective, the way it's been handled would make a good Monty Python comedy routine, something I'll parody as:
"The Minister Of Silly Posts has issued the following statement: "I shall have nothing to do with the rumors that my opponent likes to wear lady's knickers on his head, and eat peanut butter from his partner's private areas. His alleged extremely weird sexual fetishes should not be an issue in this campaign. Even if the reports of his multiple drunken orgies were true, no laws were broken, and all attendees were consenting adults. As there has been no credible evidence he has seduced underage schoolgirls, exchanged drugs for sex, or sold his office to High Street tarts, we should strive to keep this campaign on a higher level. That is all. Thank you."
[I'm sure going to get some strange keyword searches with that paragraph!]
The debate on the morality of "outing" is extensive in general, and I'm not going to go over it here. I am only going to make a meta-observation:
I am now SO GLAD that I did not volunteer to be the
human sacrifice, err, main proponent, of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
this time around. Because there's going to be a backlash,
and I'm happy *not* to be a tempting target. Writers for the number-1
blog can defend themselves, in a way that a Z-lister can't (so much
for the blog mythology).
I'm told one never knows who is reading, so if anyone from the Library Of Congress committee is lurking out there - THIS is the sort of politics that I've tried to convey is not a reasonable background for determinations of fair use to allow research. Is my point clear? Could it be any more, err, explicit? Of course you try your best, I know that. But the fact remains, the DMCA process is broken.By Seth Finkelstein | posted in activism | on March 11, 2006 11:20 AM (Infothought permalink)