[oclug] Should we invite Microsoft to an OCLUG Meeting

[Christian Gross]

Matthew Wilcox wrote:

>On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 06:22:23AM -0400, Mike Roy wrote:
>  
>
>>Hello Everyone:
>>	If we, collectively, are supporters of free speech, then we really don't have 
>>a choice but to allow Microsoft to speak at the OCLUG meeting (assuming they 
>>express a desire to address the club).  Free speech is not limited to 
>>supporting those that share a common point of view.  The real test of free 
>>speech is demonstrating a tolerance for those that disagree with us.  Because 
>>we listen to a different point of view is not an automatic acceptance of that 
>>point of view.  We can listen and still disagree.
>>    
>>
>
>Please see http://www.oclug.on.ca/pipermail/oclug/2004-May/038719.html
>
>  
>
I have been following this thread for a while and decided not to rebut.  
HOWEVER, now I will.

 >> "freedom of speech" is such a ridiculous canard.  It's primarily a
restriction on the *government* to permit the saying of things the
government finds embarrassing."

No it is not ridiculous, it is a way of life and way of thinking.  
Consider the following earlier email.

Francis J. A. Pinteric wrote:

>We can loose more out if too. For instance, M$ appearing at an OCLUG
>meeting may convince some of our own members that it is OK if they
>continued to dual-boot their machines because Linux doesn't have all the
>things that they do. It gives them a chance to roll out some of their
>new toys and cause the tech-only members to drool, and perhaps buy it
>instead of boycotting M$, as they are morally bound to do.
>
>
>  
>
This is called censorship and somebody who has decided that you cannot 
listen to something or do something because they think it will harm the 
"uneducated" many.

In the email reference:

 >>It's not your right to say anything you want on somebody else's mailing
list.  It's not your right to have your letter published in a newspaper.
It's not your right to be allowed to address any group on any topic you
see fit.

 >>It is your right to set up your own mailing list for discussion of what
you want.  It is your right to run your own newspaper and publish your
own editorials.  It is your right to invite a group to gather to listen
to your views.

I actually beg to differ.  Referring to the Canadian Constitution:

. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
                (a) freedom of conscience and religion
                (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,
                including freedom of the press and other means of
                communication.
                (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
                (d) freedom of association.

It does not say only in public, or a mailing list, or some place as 
defined by somebody.  THIS IS THE POINT.  Otherwise we could say this 
club is for white males only!  This means I have the right to voice my 
opinion and say what I want.  You can try and stop me and I can protest 
you as a reply.  Or I can charge you as having infringed my rights, from 
the constitution.

24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this
        Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of
        competent  jurisdiction  to obtain such  remedy  as  the court
        considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

            (2) Where, in proceedings under   subsection (1), a  court
        concludes   that  evidence  was   obtained  in a  manner  that
        infringed or denied any rights  or freedoms guaranteed by this
        Charter, the evidence  shall be excluded  if it is established
        that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of
        it in the   proceedings would   bring  the administration   of
        justice into disrepute.

Will this help?  Maybe, maybe not...  The point though is that I have 
the right as you have the right to reply.  After all we are in a 
democracy....

Christian Gross