RE: [soac-mapo] Incitement (#6 & #14) was Re: [] RE: List of Discussion Threads

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Unless there is objection, I am going to leave them as separate threads,
one on the term "incitement" (#14) and one on the "discrimination"
criteria (#6) because I think they are different threads.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 3:53 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: [soac-mapo] Incitement (#6 & #14) was Re: [] RE: List of
> Discussion Threads
> 
> 
> 
> On 1 Sep 2010, at 15:12, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >
> >> From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Is Konstantinos'  issue of 'incitement' significantly non-redundant
> wrt #6?
> >>
> >
> >> I wondered the same thing Evan.  It is probably up to Avri to help
> us decide that because I believe she is the one that raised thread #
6.
> My understanding is that Avri had two concerns: 1) the use of the term
> 'incitement' and the 'discrimination' criteria listed.  Is that
correct
> Avri?  Do you think it would be reasonable to combine # 6 & # 14?
> >>
> >
> > #6  Incitement to discrimination criterion
> >
> > #14 I would also add the use of 'incitement' as a term for the
> determination of morality and public order. If I recall some of us,
> including myself, do not see how a simple gTLD would be able to
> 'incite' any illegal activity, not at least in the way the term is
used
> in criminal law.
> 
> Well it can't be completely up to me.  Konstantinos and others would
> have something to day about it too.
> 
> I think that Konstantinos and I have somewhat different views of the
> same issue.
> 
> He, and others, indicate that a simple string cannot incite.  And they
> use the example of including a string in a email message on this list
> to prove that it does not incite. I countered that this is not a good
> example, as we are somewhat dispassionate (most of the time anyway)
and
> are using the strings as conversational devices and examples.    They
> argue that it is only the content of a site that makes it an
incitement
> and argue that our boundary against  including content means
incitement
> is not possible.
> 
> I tend to believe a string can incite and that is does not depend on
> the content of a web cite I believe that it depends on the context and
> the timing.  .E.g. .bomb-all-mosques on the side of a NYC bus or
.maim-
> all-queers on a billboard in Uganda or the simple word .lesbian (in
> Arabic) in the UAE might actually incite something to happen.  Given
63
> characters, we can produce some intense text - we have already learned
> to change the world in 140 characters - we can do it in 63 almost as
> easily.  So I believe a phrase can incite.
> 
> My issue is that I believe that despite the power of words to incite,
> it is not relevant as a criterion for judging gTLDs.  I believe any
> word or phrase in the wrong place at the wrong time can cause
> incitement and that all such incitement is contextual.  The attribute
> of being able to incite does not seem useful to me as a criterion
> because it is always contextual (even without content) and the DNS
does
> not have a single context.  My point has to do with questioning what
we
> mean by incitement and whether we can really judge that a string will
> or will not incite as the DNS is not contextually bound. Put another
> way, the DNS can be accessed in all times and in all places, so
> eventually any word will hit the context where it incites.
> 
> So the issues may be similar and may be in the same category.  I
> certainly have no objection to including them in the same category,
but
> then we might end up arguing over whether strings can incite, and not
> over whether that matters in the least.
> 
> I am fine either way.
> 
> a.
>