[IRP] APC statement to denounce attacks on anonymous online speech by US gov

Lee W McKnight lmcknigh
Tue Apr 24 20:12:43 EEST 2012

I agree that the word 'progressive' in the body of text is ok as is, but may lead some to more readily dismiss it without focusing on substance.

Of course, some will dismiss no matter what.

And either way I too am supportive of statement.

From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen [tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 1:04 PM
To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
Subject: Re: [IRP] APC statement to denounce attacks on anonymous online speech by US gov

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 05:50:52PM +0100, Dixie Hawtin (Dixie at global-partners.co.uk) wrote:

> The use of progressive within the statement seems to be showing
> support for the decision by those ISPs to support anonymous internet
> use (rather than support for the human rights groups signing the
> statement!). I am happy with it. Norbert? Lee? Tapani?

I could live with it, but not happily - I concur with Allon here:

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 06:55:40PM +0200, Allon Bar (ab3137 at columbia.edu) wrote:

> I too believe that 'politically-progressive', even in this body
> text, risks making this denouncement focused on a political
> subsection (and as a consequence put users in that box as well),
> whereas the concern is one that should be shared with all.

Yes. It is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the statement.

But as noted, even with that wording I'd support it.

Tapani Tarvainen
IRP mailing list
IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org

More information about the IRP mailing list