The message below was taken from Aaron's blog site and reproduced without any editing nor amendment for posterity, in case Aaron decides to delete it like what Singapore Angle has done on some of the discussions in their posts. I hope the Brotherhood or Aaron do not mind me reproducing the article/post on this blog. If any objection is made to this within the next 30 days I would apologise and delete it completely.
====================================================================
One last message from the Brotherhood
Email This Post 
Print This PostI was requested by the Brotherhood via the contact form on my blog to publish their very last article (from my understanding, they are leaving Singapore, although I am not sure if they are leaving the Singaporean blogosphere). As a matter of adhering to my personal principle of free speech and right of hearing, I’m acceding to their request. However, this is NOT an endorsement of the Brotherhood, and I will not entertain future requests, since this is supposed to their final word. I am locking comments for this entry because this is their final word, and I intend to leave it as that.
======================================================================
This debate was held in the under the special sessions emergency ordinance 9003 In Primus Aldentes Prime to discuss the recent developments concerning the suspension of all brotherhood publication in the Intelligent Singaporean recently earth time: 23-8-07 / The debate conducted in the Socratic fashion was lead by Councilor Vollaraine who addressed the committee on Hansard Vol II – special sessions – the motion is to move for a rebuke on the recent case of the Singapore Angle in removing large sections of the post relating to the Singapore blogosphere review on the first order and the second to find a new site for the brotherhood press.
First speaker: Cerebus for the case of Singapore Angle waives in favor of Vollariane arguing for censure.
Vollariane:
Senators
This is indeed a regrettable development. (1) Firstly the suspension of the brotherhood press in the IS followed by the Singapore Angle removing – (2) gutting out whole chunks of a thread which accounted for much of the dispute raised by senator darkness of the FC boys / the question that the council of wise has to decide upon is whether the act of committed by the Singapore Angle constitutes an action that warrants a terse and sharp response.
Senators, I urge for calm. I am sure the site master of the Singapore Angle would say that as administrators they have a responsibility to ensure that material posted (which was subsequently deleted) was properly classified, but this isn’t so much a question of right as it presents the question: does a site master have a right to free rein to the extent of distorting by deleting vital discourse material which would have given a contextual accuracy to the whole debate which justified the claim of senator darkness vis-à-vis: why wasn’t the brotherhood press mentioned in the Singapore blogosphere review.
As it stands today darkness doesnt even have a case because much of what he mentioned was posted in his the thread in the Singapore Angle.
Councilor Cerebus has argued the case, it remains the right of every site administrator to conduct the cost and benefits of having to content which post that not only imputes bad faith on the part of the site administrator. His contention remains, the site administrators of Singapore Angle has every right to edit postings which may be deemed prejudicial to the their interest.
Senators while I agree with this contention Councilor Cerebus offers no proposal for how they might actually perform that contextual, intra-executive task, which in all fairness even the best site administrators have historically deemed beyond their expertise!
Neither does Councilor Cerebus contention propose a definition of what is deemed desirable censorship to accomplish his cost and benefit calculation in favor of the site master - what if it comes at the cost of the truth? – that contention only remains true if we believe one’s right is not reducible to one’s policy preferences – (Time extended by speaker of the house in favor of vollairane to continue).
Senators councilor accuses me, in effect of subscribing to a linking of constitutionalism to the whole idea that a site master does not necessarily have the right to edit his post– while I agree if the nature of the post is slanderous, malicious and defamatory, the site master has every right to act, in this particular instance, I see none of these in the post that has been deleted by the site master of Singapore Angle and therefore I will have to ask what Councilor Cerebus means when he terms cost and benefit calculations that favors the interest of the site master.
Gentlemen, I contend otherwise as the cost and benefit justification that allows a site master to edit post dismisses – text, precedent, tradition and even reason (uproar in the great hall!) – cannot be based on simply a cost and benefit calculation to either preserve their world view or lend currency to their position taken. This sets a dangerous precedent – as it attempts to reduce everything to the convenience of the site master at the expense of the truth. Whether we like it or not the net has a constitution one that is not so different as the constraints which features as constraints, guidelines and yardsticks to the decision making process, but it cannot be self serving to the site master as he is merely the custodian of the truth. These are deemed fundamental principles and therefore they may even aspire to the status of constitutional values – over our collective history, there may be differences over the interpretation of the truth, but no one party, not even the site master has a right to exclude the full text so that others may be choose to read and decide for themselves – this is why Cerebus is wrong and his support of the Singapore Angle’s right to edit their post is premised of a weaker ground.
My friends, I have tried to reason to reason with darkness, but let us not forget, he sees the world differently from us all, but despite our differences, I have to agree he has a cogent case when he states the recent act of the Singapore Angle to scrub out much of the discourse is an act that further erases our history – the reason is simple, any constitution even one that applies to something as primordial as the net cannot be premised on the belief the site master can engage on any practice whose benefits outweigh it’s cost – we have seen the terrible results of this in the past where volumes of our history has been erased, as Cerebus would have it, but instead there must be a collective will even by netizens to insist that site masters do not engage in this activity only because while democracy may be an antidote to tyranny and oppression – even the framers of any constitution would have realized it’s latent danger, that it facilitates another form of tyranny - the tyranny of the majority against the minority – for years the brotherhood has fought against extraordinary odds to survive, in Pillium, we fought against an army 300 times our size and won and in the Ascension wars the figure was twice this – my brothers, for this reason alone site masters cannot be allow to edit, censor or even chuck out whole chunks of discourse on the grounds of cost and benefit calculations. As I mentioned earlier they have a duty to uphold the unwritten constitution in the internet where they serve as custodians of the truth even if it means contending with the inconvenience of being seen in a bad light – this constitution is not about efficiency, and is nothing short of a commitment to the truth. To call that mere rhetoric is to miss the very point of what it means to solicit real democratic change in the net.
Under ordinance 173 – I propose the brotherhood lodges the strongest protest against the actions taken by the site masters of Singapore Angle and strongly recommend that they reinstate the original post – under charter 15 – I hereby move the motion that the brotherhood searches for a new site to call home.
Councilor Vollariane / Motion passed 0027 Primus time.
We will survive, thrive and long live the brotherhood!
==========================================================================For my own records.
The Garuda - 24 August 2007.
