[Community-Discuss] Breach of the Code of Conduct by Mr Ronald Guilmette
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Feb 25 09:40:30 UTC 2021
In message <673045AD-D320-4CD9-8D9D-3299A92C83F7 at consulintel.es>,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:
>As a consequence, it is totally ridiculous that AFRINIC tries
>to censor anyone, and we must not accept it.
I understand your reasonable concern, although on this occasion I do
not share it for the simple reason that it does not appear that I have
been censored in this instance. My message did go out, and thus I was
free to speak my mind, which I unquestionably did.
The presence or absence of my controversial message, in the archives
and in perpetuity, seems to me altogether less consequential, in contrast,
and is not a hill that personally feel compelled to fight over, let alone
die on, as we say here.
That having been said, I confess that I *did* previously complain here
that one of my messages from a month or more ago never seemed to appear
in the archives, and that I did feel censored at that time and with
respect to *that* message. But now I am of the opinion that the absence
from the archives of that messages was likely due to some technical
glitch, and not to any deliberate decision on anyone's part. On that
basis, I'd like to retract any comments I made at the time about that.
To reiterate, my messages to the list do seem to be going out, people
are apparently reading them (with varying degrees of support, dissent,
or consternation) and thus I am not censored. If AFRINIC feels that
its legal standing could be in some way harmed by its own act of
effectively republishing, in perpetuity, something that could possibly
be construed as a legal offense in AFRINIC's home jurisdiction, then
it does not seem to me too awfully far out of line for AFRINIC to
effectively redact the archives in some such limited instances.
I would note also that even we here in the U.S. are still squabbling
amongst ourselves about the so-called "Section 230" of the Communications
Decency Act and the legal protections which it affords to entities and
platforms that merely republish the words of others. The current law
provides a carte blache blanket immunity to any person or entity that
merely republishes the words of another, but there are many, on both the
left and the right, who would have it be otherwise.
In any case, I think that it would be a bit too presumptive for us to
insist that this RIR, or any RIR, should engage in the act of republication,
in a permanent archive, entirely without regard to the local legal framework.
More information about the Community-Discuss