A discussion was going on in the Linux Gazette's The Answer Gang about a post by RMS on harry potter book. Ben Okopnik, an all-round nice guy and a perl guru, made the following observation -
> If the injunction really orders them not to read the books they have
> purchased, that strikes me as wrong, but hey, we all know the law is an ass,
> even in Canada. If I'd bought a book and got an injunction like this, I'd
> still read it, I just wouldn't tell them 
...and if we extend that line of reasoning just a bit further, it brings
us to (what I think is) RMS' original point. How much of a right do we
grant to our governments to declare arbitrary actions illegal, no matter
how trivial or harmless?
The cynic in me says that governments love having their citizens buy
into a belief that they (the citizens) are guilty of something; people
with something to hide are likely to keep their heads down and be good
little sheep lest they be noticed and shorn. As the saying in Russia
went, "nobody ever asks 'why' when the KGB takes them away." The KGB, of
course, had a matching expression: "if we have the man, we'll make the
case."
If the government is allowed to control trivial aspects of people's
lives, then they will do so. Not in all cases, but... oh, the
"opportunities" that arise. Perhaps this case is not as black-and-white
as it could be, but I surely do see it as a very steep and well-greased
slippery slope - with its entry point just under a hidden trap door.
Ben Okopnik Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette http://linuxgazette.net
I agree with his sentiments completely. Most people assume the
government to be all knowing and always correct entity. What they
forget is that the government is not an amorphous mass, it is made of
people - who might have no clue. Anyone has just to look at the
Indian government's blunderings in the IT LAW to learn how
clueless it is.
Comments