When we began, we weren't worried about how to say things.
We needed to make them possible to say.
Does reporting lead to injury?
IIf we've been denied the opportunity to use the courts by fees, violence, or contempt, and are being harassed in our homes for writing up complaints online, we ought to be able to cite the standard used by the medical profession: If we've been injured in the commission of a crime, we're required to report it.
Have we been robbed of the truth?
Distraction by way of equivocation is used by those who seek to avoid disclosure. And sometimes describing a publication as hate speech or content advocating for lawlessness, or inciting violence, those negatively impacted feel justified to using disruption or interference to prevent us from accomplishing what truly is our civic duty.
By misrepresenting work as inflammatory by citing rough drafts, or misleading the public with broken language and hacked works, readers are distracted from any further investigation. Doubt results, separating us all from each other, and sometimes - even us from ourselves.
Isn't unfair to interfere with someones publications?
Normally it’s unfair to obstruct the right to free speech, but if a business or other professional is denied their income, or the State it’s authority, they may choose to use their skills to obtain their income, or regain control by removing the obstruction.
This is true of most competitive marketplaces, and it is a fundamental flaw of capitalism. Violence is a fact of life in a free market economy. To ignore it’s ever present threat is foolish. And, without access to legal tender, desperation replaces prudence with difficult, and challenging ways to get needs met.
Can we blame the Internet for the instructions we've been given?
The Internet does not publish content, human beings do, so the fault is not the Internet’s. The net is simply following instructions provided by a human being. And, because it cannot represent itself, a disparaging report is a public attack on the medium - whether it be 'the cloud', a database, or your local pc. It does no good. Crime is a human behavior resulting from a lack of focus that needs to be corrected by dedication to our disciplines.
Do we have to say who we are when making a complaint?
The requirement to report can (and has been) replaced by concentration camps at times, where no charges are made, and anyone can enter a plea at any time. Bringing charges can and does lead to violence and lawlessness. And law enforcement responds to harmful behavior of any kind by keeping the peace, and protecting and defending people.
Can we really trust healthcare professionals?
The decisions made by healthcare professionals today are frequently made by equipment we've helped to develop that are accessed by communications we're using right now. We don't need doctors to read results to us. If we continue to improve our mail services, we'll be able to obtain our supplies safely enough to use the diagnostic equipment and procure our medications as well.
However, the strategies used to protect healthcare professionals are so radical, that we may not have an opportunity to recover from them. Consider the fate of prostitutes, who are perhaps the only population that can treat the trauma that results from a medical practice known as circumcision before you do.
Is it fair to use a label to deny a claim?
When a person identifies themselves as a 'plaintiff', or someone making a complaint, they're required to identify themselves in order to allow for a defense. In some cases, the use of labels, or access to the media used to prove the validity of the claims are obstructed, or destroyed in order to deny the opportunity.