I prefer freedom. (RE^2: Dissertation)

[Q*bert]

I don't think any content restrictions should be applied at all. If people are offended, they may choose not to participate in particular conversations. Words are not going to hurt them--at worst they'll annoy them a little and cause them to avoid some authors like the plague, as I do with Jon Katz.

Furthermore, I think we should allow "hacking tools" to be posted here. Every such tool has two edges. One is the edge that exposes network insecurities, which makes it invaluable for the system administrator. The other is the edge that allows you to exploit those insecurities, which makes it valuable for script kiddies. Often there's a third, grey edge that makes the tool useful for network monitoring or analysis in general--look at netcat as an example of such a tool.

Fortunately, Nate has shown a history of laissez- faire administration on Everything. As to you, I hope you will reconsider your pro-censorship stance. Once you open the floodgates by saying "stuff that offends people should be banned", easily offended people come along and cut off all your freedoms. Before you know it, there's nothing left at all.

That's too high a price to pay to get rid of some stuff that you personally find offensive. Even if you believe it is O.K. to cut off someone else's freedom for the sake of your comfort (which I vehemently do not!) it still doesn't make sense, from a selfish perspective, to start censoring things. Nobody wins.

Regards, --Q