girtby.net

Yesterday’s apology to the Stolen Generation was a very moving and hugely significant moment in Australian history. For most of my life the many problems of Aboriginal people in this country have seemed intractable, even hopeless. This is the first time in many, many years that visible and meaningful progress has been made. I hope the importance of the occasion is adequately reflected in the global news coverage.

The speech itself (video) deserves special mention I think. It pleases me greatly that Kevin Rudd found just the right words to represent my view and (I hope) that of most other right-thinking Australians. Worth a listen.

Local news coverage has of course been blanket, and peppered with the obligatory contrasting views.

The most famous of the contrary views is that of the ex-PM John Howard who notoriously claimed that he saw no reason to apologise for past deeds because they were committed by a previous generation. This has a simple, possibly obvious rebuttal, but I have not heard it mentioned in the media so I’ll state it here.

If (hypothetical) you wish to renounce the wrongdoings of the past, you are free to do so. However, to be consistent you must also renounce the achievements of the past.

Can you imagine John Howard renouncing the sacrifices and achievements of the ANZACs? His past sporting heroes? His hero Robert Menzies? No, I can’t either. However it is necessary to do so in order to avoid the responsibility for the Stolen Generation.

In simple terms, you have to take the good with the bad.

For Aboriginal Australia, the good has been in short supply of late, and it’s very gratifying to see signs of change.

Herewith, some comments apropos of the Macworld 08 Keynote, specifically Randy Newman’s performance at the end.

Firstly, the Keynote as a whole seems to have moved from slick-but-reality-distorted marketing into the realms of straight-out entertainment. Apple are simply leading the pack, and I expect Microsoft and others to follow (e.g. Bill Gates’s CES keynote). At the end of the Keynote, Randy Newman sang a couple of songs and rambled (fairly incoherently I thought). Part of the monologue was related to Apple as he said that “this company” wasn’t like the others; although it was sufficiently vague that he could have been talking about Pixar instead. And aside from this one mention, Newman could have been playing a set on a late night chat show or something.

The convergence of entertainment with marketing is taken to an extreme in Jon Armstrong’s excellent and hilarious novel Grey (available for free on audio podcast from his site). Without giving away too much, in the world of Grey, corporate marketing includes “publicity dates” between members of the respective CEOs families, the resulting courtship is eagerly devoured by a gossip-hungry public, and actual information about the products or the company is completely ignored. In a similar vein, future MacWorld Keynotes could easily include dance routines from Steve Jobs’ offspring. OK maybe not, but you have to wonder where it will end.

My second point is that the flavour of entertainment on display at the Macworld 08 show was particularly inappropriate I thought. The message came through pretty loud and clear: Randy Newman doesn’t like the Bush administration. The song A few words in defense of our country makes the case that the current US government is bad, but not as bad as it could have been, in comparison to the Roman Caesars for example (setting the bar rather low I would have thought).

Criticism of the Bush administration is something I obviously have a lot of time for. But is it suitable for a consumer product launch?

To those apparently many people at the launch who were pleased with Newman’s performance; please ask yourself how you would have felt if the entertainment had taken a position contrary to your own. Mark Nottingham described this exact situation a few years back. I have been in a similar situation, albeit on a smaller scale; prior to the Iraq invasion I was at a business meeting where one of the attendees made his clear pro-Bush views known, much to my discomfort.

Mix politics with business and you take a risk with a relatively small upside but a big downside. If your politics match mine, we are no more likely to do business together than before we knew each other’s positions. But if our politics disagree, this difference becomes a barrier that we each have to overcome in order to do business together.

I’m not arguing for censorship or anything. I’m just saying that the separation of politics and business is crucial for the success of both.

I’m still in holiday mode and have not spent much time online studying the reaction to the idiotic mandatory filtering proposals from the new Rudd government, but I expect this editorial published in the Australian is mostly representative. I disagree with none of it.

However I just can’t help passing further comment, mainly because there is a lengthy discussion in the previously-mentioned Lessig book which outlines what I would consider an acceptable regulatory framework for controlling access to content online. So please feel free to peruse it for yourself (the section titled “Regulating Net-Porn” in particular), but it might be summarised as requiring publishers to rate their content in accordance with pre-existing legal standards (eg a “harmful to minors” HTML tag), which would in turn create a market for end-user filtering technology.

But instead of this, what are we getting? Mandatory (but perhaps a per-customer ‘opt-out’ ability) filtering of some vaguely defined standard using not-at-all defined technology and with not-at-all defined procedures for redress of inappropriate filtering. Just like the internet connection at work, in other words.

The point that strikes me upon reading Lessig’s book is that *if* filtering is to be performed (and I reiterate the point that I am not against it) it is better that it be performed by the government, in accordance with acknowledged moral standards, with process transparency and accountability. None of these are guaranteed (nor likely) if private interests are involved in filtering our content. As Lessig says:

It has taken key civil rights organizations too long to recognize this private threat to free-speech values. The tradition of civil rights is focused directly on government action alone. I would be the last to say that there’s not great danger from government misbehavior. But there is also danger to free speech from private misbehavior.

But in handing the filtering problem to the ISPs, the government is effectively absolving themselves of the responsibility to implement it as intended. ISPs will of course implement the content filtering using the cheapest solution they can find, even if the false-positive rate is 99.5%.

On the other hand they could require the ISPs to block sites on ACMA’s blacklist. And we all know how well that will work, right kids? But the point is that at least with ACMA you have some recourse.

I think that requiring government accountability is the key to ensuring an acceptable outcome. If they are serious about the problem of content finding an inappropriate audience, lets see them own that problem, not just outsource it to the ISPs and hope for the best.

So I recently finished Lawrence Lessig’s Code 2.0 and I am compelled to pass some sort of comment on it. Book reviews aren’t really my strength, but this one definitely deserves attention of some sort.

First the easy stuff. This book is a new edition of an earlier book with the obvious title. The changes and updates have been through an interesting process whereby the entire text of the book was posted on a wiki and anonymous contributions were invited to produce the successor. This might make you a bit wary about the overall continuity and structure of the book but I’m happy to report this is not a problem at all. Follow the link above and you’ll note that the entire text of the book is still available online, and indeed contributions are currently being sought for Code 3.0.

As you might expect from a Creative Commons founder, Lessig is putting his money where his mouth is by putting it all online under a CC license. Notwithstanding this, you’ll probably want a paper version. I bought my copy through my usual source, the Book Depository (£8.40 shipped anywhere).

OK so it’s already an interesting book, but what is it about? (You may be wondering) Let me see if I can do it some kind of justice.

Continue reading...

Some timely and sensible comments from Peter Marks on Radio National breakfast this morning, concerning the 2Clix / Whirlpool stoush. He made the point that the best way for companies to respond to adverse criticism online is simply to engage in a discussion.

I can vouch for this based on experience here on this blog; long-time readers will recall the response I got when I called a certain company “wankers”. A representative argued his case, and although I didn’t agree with him, nor change my mind about their product, it was certainly the best possible way for them to respond. See also the response I got from Internode’s CEO when I mentioned their service.

One other point I would make while we’re dispensing advice to companies trying to deal with online criticism. You should not only try to understand why your customers are upset, but also why they feel that public forums are appropriate for their grievances. It could be that they have tried and failed to contact you in some other way, and that the public forum is (or is viewed as) the only remaining option to air their grievance.

I shall illustrate this with a recent example, coincidentally also serving to air a grievance of my own. Case in point: flowers.com.au

Yesterday I went to their eponymous site and attempted to order a bunch of flowers. Having ordered from flowers.com.au once before, I was expecting a smooth experience. And it was, up until the point that I entered my credit card information and hit the submit button. The response was this:

Server Error in ‘/’ Application.

Object variable or With block variable not set.

Description: An unhandled exception occurred during the execution of the current web request. Please review the stack trace for more information about the error and where it originated in the code.

Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object variable or With block variable not set.

… and so on, including detailed instructions on how to enable debug mode, and the stack trace showing some of the inner workings of their Visual Basic website.

Now because this error happened when processing my credit card details, I’m especially concerned. Did my card get charged? If so, did the order go through? In many years of shopping online I can’t remember ever encountering a failure such as this one; generally e-commerce sites make damn sure that their payment system is working 24-7. So I’m a bit surprised as well as confused. This is pretty much the worst way for the website to fail, for all concerned.

But no worries, the rest of their website is working, so I’m able to look up their contact details. They have a phone and an actual email address (as opposed to one of those horrible “email” web forms). I don’t want to phone because I don’t want to have to read out that horrible error message. It’s easier and more convenient for me to copy’n’paste the error message into an email.

The response? None so far.

Fail to complete a credit card transaction, and then fail to respond to queries about it? I think that’s enough to earn the “wanker” title. So: flowers.com.au, you are wankers.

So the question is: what do I do next? In truth, completing the transaction is no longer my priority. Even if I did get them ordered, the flowers are never going to arrive in time, so I need to make alternative arrangements anyway. And I also need to verify through my bank that the transaction was not completed. And that’s before I make any other attempts to contact the merchant. So at this point I get a far higher return on effort by posting publicly about my experience. At least that’s my perception. And I suspect many people who post negative experiences online do so because they have the same perception.

Even if I’m wrong about this, it would still seem to be prudent for companies to understand more about their customers motivations in posting grievances publicly. And not suing, obviously.

Oh yes, I’m writing a blog article about the importance of note taking. That’s right, note taking.

Why? It’s a skill that I have been working hard on recently, and so at meetings I often find myself the only person who is doing it. This article is an attempt to evangelise note taking, a possibly dying art amongst all you young whippersnappers with your fancy tablet PCs and your screencasts and whatnot. Why in my day …

Continue reading...

I read that the ICANN has yet again had to fend off an attempt to set up a .xxx gTLD.

As a parent I am keenly interested in protecting my children’s actions online and often discuss with my SO how to manage their access when they start to reach the age when they spend more time online. Although I am far more worried about them exposing their own identities, than about being exposed to others, the latter is still a concern. There are certainly sites out there that I cannot now un-see, however much I wish I could. No doubt these sites and others will cause confusion, anxiety, and harm to tender intellects.

Like a lot of parenting, I expect there will be a fair bit of playing by ear. So when the time comes I expect it will involve some combination of: close supervision; logging and blocking proxy servers; whitelisting and blacklisting; an implicit understanding of Bayes’ theorem and the potential for false positives and negatives; some serious conversations and constant reassurance; and lastly acceptance of the fact that I’m ultimately not going to be able to stop a determined and curious teenager from finding what they want online.

Exactly what criteria I use to categorise a given site as unsuitable is still undecided. I expect to outsource to some suitably liberal classification agency of some sort. All I want, at least initially, is to block the worst material from accidental discovery, and log any access to only mildly dodgy stuff.

Anyway I can tell you right now who I wont be outsourcing this stuff to, and that is the government. Either my own government, or the US government, I have no reason to believe they will provide classifications that are compatible with my wishes. The various proposals to set up a .xxx domain also fall into the category of government-based classification, even if it is through an unwilling ICANN.

The arguments against using the gTLDs as a classification scheme are eloquently set out in RFC 3675 and there’s not much more I can add, except to ponder why PICS has languished for so long. A .xxx gTLD would be a juggernaut of laws and regulations, and a magnet for protracted legal disputes. Why can’t we just save ourselves the effort and instead do whatever it takes to get PICS off the ground? Or at least look at the business case?

I don’t know whether the folks from ICM Registry — responsible for the most recent .xxx proposal — included in their submission an assessment of PICS. Given that a technical solution to the problem of site classification is available, one would have to wonder why it is apparently not suitable for ICM Registry? The onus is on them to explain why that technical solution is not appropriate, and this one is.

Because it seems to me that the .xxx domains are simply proposals to solve a small set classification requirements with a specific technical solution, where a different solution to a larger set of requirements already exists. From a systems engineering point of view at least, it makes no sense.

Not that stops folks like ICM Registry who stand to make a ton of money in the short term, registering all those new domains. Sorry guys, looks like you’ll have to try a different sales pitch.

Here are some pretty banal observations on the Hicks case that are probably best kept to myself, but I’ll inflict them upon you anyway.

Miranda Devine (yes, sorry) reckons that Hicks supporters thought he was innocent. Maybe some of them did. But the rest of us were just interested in the process of a fair trial. You know, justice and all that.

What if he had pleaded not guilty? Would that have made a difference? Of course not. Unlike us, Hicks is not is a position to take a stand against the kangaroo court that judges him. He has little choice but to enter a plea of some sort. Why a guilty plea then? Only he knows what his reasons where, but it seems to me like a decision based in pure pragmatism.

The point I want to make is that it is not up to the accused to legitimise the actions of the court. Either the process of law conforms to some accepted overarching legal principles, and is legitimate. Or it doesn’t, and it isn’t. The US Military Commissions fall into the latter category for many violations of basic legal principles.

Not enough has been made in the press of the fact that the charge of Providing Material Support for Terrorism didn’t exist prior to 2006 and yet is being applied retrospectively to Hicks’ actions in 2001.

Peter Vickery explains some of the sorry history of so-called ex post facto laws, noting particularly that our Prime Minister condemned them outright in 2004 (thanks Matt for the pointer).

It is frankly baffling to me why this fact would not be widely recognised. For starters it’s not a obscure legal principle like hearsay. Nor is this a principle that invites slippery-slope, shades-of-grey, ticking-time bomb analogies. It’s pretty clear to even a 4 year old that retrospective rules are fundamentally unjust.

Australians should also be reminded of another anti-terror case which was prosecuted on the basis of retrospective law. In 2004 Indonesia’s Constitutional Court, to its credit, found that such a law was being used to prosecute Abu Bakar Bashir for the 2002 Bali bombings, and promptly overturned his conviction.

Obviously the Hicks case is vastly different and I’m not suggesting that Hicks’ conviction would be overturned in similar circumstances.

However it does seem obvious from recent events that the constitutional protections against retrospective law in both the US and Indonesia have proven extremely important in recent times. And Wikipedia tells me that we already have had retrospective legislation applied in this country (though admittedly not for criminal law). So I say we should amend our constitution to prevent this kind of travesty interfering with our legal system. Who’s with me?

It’s probably a good thing that you don’t see what goes on behind the scenes at Casa Del Girtby. Instead of fully-formed posts (or what passes for such on this site) instead I have lately just been producing mostly unrelated snippets. They don’t deserve a post in their own right, but if I give each of them a bullet point, together perhaps they could form a bloggable mass. Again.

• In topical news, did anyone else think that the response from Sen. Barack Obama to John Howard’s outrageous insult was a little, well, lame? Obama basically said “well maybe he should commit 20,000 more troops”. That would bring Australia’s commitment up to something like 21,400 which is, apparently, above the magic figure which would make Howard’s trash-talk legitimate. Why 20,000? Why not 200,000? Why not 20? Surely Howard was out of line no matter how many troops we had in Iraq. For someone as legendarily lucid and articulate as Obama, this was a most disappointing retort.

• Because I am, apparently, a glutton for atheistic writings, lately I’ve been dabbling in some of the works of Bertrand Russell. Russell was a truly great man with a huge intellect and the ability to express with clarity and reason his views. Although others such as Dawkins have taken over the mantle somewhat, Russell still needs to be heard and read as much as ever. Have a read of some of the material online (courtesy of wikipedia, above). Then try your hand at following along as Mark Dominus explains Russell and Whitehead’s proof that 1 + 1 = 2. Brain-bending stuff.

• Also on atheism, it occurred to me the other day that the mental effort required to move from a state of belief to unbelief must be quite significant. Once you believe in something, it is very difficult to unbelieve it. The effort required is far greater than that required to become a believer in the first place. This realisation has caused me to ask myself: what would it take for me to become religious? The answer is quite a lot of mental contortions. This is a useful measure of the effort that I am expecting of religious people in renouncing their faith. In other words, I would find it extremely difficult to become religious, and should expect the same degree of difficulty for religious people to become atheists. Excuse me while I pat myself on the back for such exemplary tolerance.

• In techy news I have been reading a lot about video compression lately. Specifically MPEG 4 and H.264. This is a fascinating subject, and Richardson’s book is an excellent introduction. I’m impressed by the extremely clever compression techniques employed by H.264 and the fact that it is relatively patent-free (in Baseline Profile anyway). For this reason I would probably suggest that H.264 Baseline be the video codec of choice for archival purposes, although I need to read more. I’m starting to question the conventional wisdom that H.264 requires significant CPU resources for playback, given that the Apple TV can do 1280x720 H.264 at 24fps with nothing more than a 1 GHz Pentium M. Hey, even my 5.5G Video iPod will do 640x480 H.264 at 30fps.

• Updated I almost forgot to mention that I’ve stolen from Typo the JavaScript for displaying “friendly” dates (ie “X days ago”) on each article posted. I’ve also adapted it for each comment, displaying the elapsed time since article publication. Check out the JavaScript if you want to see how it’s done.

That’s it for now, enjoy your week.

Some half-arsed pseudo-philosophical ramblings follow. It starts with some musings on transistors and eventually circles around to show some relevance to current events, specifically the climate change debate. But be warned, it will take a while.

Continue reading...

We are now in the home stretch and will soon arrive at the end of the Bush administration. Not a moment too soon.

In the last 6 or so years we have seen just so much insanity out of the white house that it is hard to keep track of. The horrendous Patriot Act almost seems a quaint historical footnote in face of some of the other abominations that have been laid before us.

For my own benefit I was going to go back through the archives and come up with a list of the worst of the worst. The acts and deeds of the Bush cronies that scrape the bottom of the barrel. Just to get it all straight in my own mind, you understand.

I promise that I was going to try to be fair and balanced. That is, ignore the scandals which were not foreseeable, or relatively harmless, or caused only indirectly, or through the incompetence of a lowly subordinate. Foleygate wouldn’t make the list, for example. Abu Ghraib would not make the list, but the response to it would. “Mission Accomplished” was mostly a political stunt with relatively minor repercussions that wouldn’t make the list. I wasn’t even going to get mad at the Bush gang for the useless Congress or obsequious media. You see that I am trying to be generous.

But after toying with the list for a bit, I now have to admit defeat. I’m going to cut and run. Going back through the details of madness like Executive Order 13233 or immigration reform, or the underhanded media tactics, or the assault on science or … enough. It’s just too much.

So I can’t say with absolute certainty after sober reflection and contemplation that the current enactment of the Military Commissions Act is the absolute lowest point of the Bush administration. But it’s pretty fucking bad.

Olbermann’s rant is eloquent and apparently a better response than I can manage. It’s passionate and rhetorical but worth listening to.

Roll on 2009.

One of the persistent memes in the Australian media is the notion of childhood obesity caused by poor diet and no exercise. It’s one of those self-evident truths that nevertheless causes much handwringing and below-the-neck stock footage on the evening broadcast.

Recently there was a report released by Access Economics which estimated the cost of obesity (both adult and childhood) at $3.7b. Oops, make that $21b. (From reading the report, it seems the lower figure is from type-2 diabetes alone, and the higher figure from all diseases combined). It’s a lot, anyway.

So what to do? Most discussion has revolved around fairly weak-sounding measures such as removing — or even just toning down — junk food advertising targeted at kiddies.

But I can’t help wondering why an excise wouldn’t help here. We tax cigarettes and alcohol in order to (partly) offset the increased health costs that result from their use. Why should junk food be any different, assuming a suitable definition can be found? Better still, what if the excise were to subsidise not the health costs associated with obesity, but instead subsidise the availability, and price, of less harmful food?

Continue reading...

Watching a recent ABC news report on Hiroshima Day ceremonies, I’m mildly irritated at the way that such an occasion can be co-opted. I guess it depends on what lessons you learn from the Hiroshima bombings.

Some say that Hiroshima should remind us all that civilian casualties are unacceptable in any conflict. And the relevance to the situation in Lebanon is all too apparent.

Others say that Hiroshima should first and foremost be a warning against the dangers of nuclear weapons. The relevance to nuclear energy proposals is less apparent.

Anyway, Hiroshima obviously serves as a clear and present warning against the dangers of nuclear weapons and the brutality of civilian casualties. But I don’t think this should be the main lesson we Australians should be learning.

It is vitally important for us to remember that we were complicit in Hiroshima. The blood of all those civilians is on our hands.

It’s all very well to wash our hands of this blood and say that the bombs were necessary to end the war. I’m not saying that the bombs weren’t necessary, or that it wasn’t the right decision to drop them given the facts at hand. Historians can better judge this than I can.

But surely we need to face up to what we did? We call ourselves a civilised society. If that means anything, surely it means that we take responsibility for our actions. If we do bad, even in the pursuit of long-term good, we need to face up to it.

We need to honor the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We need to apologise, even if America won’t.

Australians cannot defer total responsibility across the Pacific. Whilst it was obviously America that ultimately made the decision to bomb, we undoubtedly share at least some of the responsibility of this decision. Japan was our enemy. We were fighting them in alliance with the Americans. Would Menzies have authorised the bomb, had he been asked? I’d bet he would have.

The Japanese atrocities in WW2 are often mentioned in the Australian media. Typically each story will mention the horrendous hardship endured by Australian POWs, and the issue of Japanese apology is often mentioned. That there is a long list of apologetic statements from various Japanese government figures seems only to detract from the story of a reticent, possibly defiant, Japan.

But how can Australia expect an apology from Japan unless we apologise for crimes of our own?

The real lesson of Hiroshima day is for Australians to wake up a finally face up to what we did. Maybe then we can face up to what we continue to do, 60 years later.

Global warming is a depressing problem. Not just because there are large numbers of clueless "skeptics" who refuse to even acknowledge the problem, but mostly because there doesn't seem to be any sustainable solutions even on the horizon.

The more we delay action on global warming, the more desperate we become. Any solution, even a temporary one, becomes attractive. So I've been wondering recently whether nuclear power might be a great way to buy us some time in order to put our greenhouse in order, if not a sustainable solution for the long term.

The recent WaPo op-ed by Greenpeace co-founder nuclear industry shill Robert Moore makes the case for nuclear (via Deltoid). Notwithstanding his background, I agree with his points although I would still prefer to see nuclear power as a stop-gap (or stop-gas, groan) solution.

[One additional advantage that Moore didn't mention was that nuclear fuel can be [mostly found](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Uraniumexplorationand_mining) in a country that is far more stable, politically, than most of the current energy providing nations. Coincidentally I live in this country. And as an unavoidable side-effect of widespread nuclear power adoption I expect to be made fantastically wealthy. C'est la vie.]

This is not to say that we should stop researching wind power, tidal power, hamster treadmills, cold fusion, perpetual motion machines, etc etc etc. And we've got to stop burning fossil fuels, reducing our overall energy consumption, blah blah blah. None of this is precluded by the adoption of nuclear power as a means of reducing GHG emissions.

And while we're laying down the caveats, let me also acknowledge the huge political, economic, social and other challenges in ramping up and ramping down a nuclear power infrastructure in accordance with long term ecological sustainability. And any of these could turn out to be deal-breakers. I acknowledge, I am not an expert in this area. (Is anyone though?)

In reading briefly the responses to Moore's article, I've come across some arguments against the idea (such as here and here).

• Too many reactors would be needed, we can't build that many. Fair enough I guess, but this doesn't seem to be an argument against nuclear power, rather an argument that we should have used it sooner. Other than this I don't really have a good response, except to hope that what we can build would be sufficient to have some sort of worthwhile impact.

• Not much of the planet's GHG emissions come from electrical power. Again fair enough, but this will have to change in any event. And the likely non-GHG alternative for fossil fuels is electricity.

• We should be reducing our energy usage anyway. Well, duh.

• Nuclear is more expensive than equivalent renewable energy, especially once you factor in huge government subsidies (in the US, if not elsewhere). Ok, that sounds reasonable, so let's build as many non-nuclear non-GHG plants as we can, but really how many places in the world are suitable for off-shore wind farms?

• Nuclear power is dangerous, and produces yucky waste. Yes, but we're weighing up the risk of (hopefully) isolated radiation contamination against the certainty of global temperature rise. Which would you rather: another Chernobyl, or worldwide environmental collapse as a result of global warning? OK, a false dilemma, but you see my point.

Just to be clear: I am not a fan of nuclear power. I see it as a last-resort solution. But because of a far bigger problem, and few alternatives, I think it is time to resort to it. Before the gangs take over the highways.

I commend to you last Thursday's episode of Late Night Live (mp3 here), wherein two Massachusetts intellectuals are interviewed (separately) about world affairs. The first guest was Eric Reeves, discussing the continuing violence in Darfur. The second guest was Noam Chomsky, who ranged across many topics. Both very thought provoking.

One of the issues raised for comment by Pr. Chomsky was (of course) the Danish cartoon controversy. He pointed out that unlike the US, many nations in Europe simply don't have effective freedom of speech. Chomsky is often criticised for his perpetually anti-American stance, but on this he was (and has always been as far as I know) quite unequivocal.

Incidentally, Chomsky claimed that the freedoms enjoyed in the US are a relatively recent development: dating from only the early 1960s with the civil rights movement, during which the supreme court struck down various sedition laws. Unfortunately though he didn't go into this point in any detail. As far as I know the sedition laws were prettymuch overturned during the 50s with cases such as Yates v. United States, and the 60s were more about racial issues such as school segregation, etc.

Notwithstanding, the general point is well taken that the rest of the world really hasn't achieved the same level of enlightenment as the US when it comes to freedom of speech. In Australia, we seem to be going backwards.

Today's David Irving decision is confirmation that Europe has a long way to go before it learns what freedom of speech means.

[Check out the sidebar in the linked BBC article listing the "countries with laws against holocaust denial". Half of Europe!]

Needless to say this is an absolute disgrace. The fact that a so-called civilised country like Austria could imprison a man for three years for simply making an incorrect statement denying the existence of something. Not for stating an opinion, mind, but for stating what he believed to be a fact.

To the multitudes of well-meaning but misguided people lining up to disagree with Irving: you are all completely missing the point.

This is just terrible. And the timing — so soon after the Danish cartoon incident which resulted in zero convictions for the cartoonists — couldn't be worse either.