Negative campaigning

I read a lot of comments from free and open source software supporters and antagonists about advocacy strategies and tactics. One comment I've read several times is a broad argument against "negative campaiging." This rejection of negative campaigning draws a strong analogy to negative political campaigning or smear campaigns. Some people in the free and open source software communities seem to take the position that any negative campaigning, on any issue, is to be avoided in free and open source software advocacy.

My first response is simple. I believe that there is a fundemental difference between speaking against policies or actions and "smear campaigns" the employ untrue or suspect claims, ad hominem attacks, and that attempt to avoid a real conversation about issues. I have no reservations categorically condemning the latter form of smear campaigning in campaigns for software freedom or for anything else.

Defending a position on other types of negative campaigning is more complicated. It's true: the free software movement doesn't only talk about the benefits of software freedom. It speaks out against threats to software freedom as well. The targets of this negativity include government policies like software patents, technologies like DRM and centralized network services, and firms promoting proprietary software and the policies and practices listed here. Even if paired with more positive messages about software freedom and its benefits, these messages are decidedly negative. I have supported and participated in campaigns speaking against all of the issues listed here and others. I've done so because I believe that if one is taking an ethical position and trying to increase people’s freedom, it is justified to not only speak about the benefits of the freedom but also against dispossession and disenfranchisement.

The strongest argument for these campaigns can be described through analogy. A prohibition on negativity in advocacy might be like saying that a campaign for abolishing child labor should only talk about how great a value adult workers are to their employers are or that a campaign trying to abolish land mines should talk about the benefits of bomb-free fields or two lower limbs. Or that a free speech organization should only speak out about the benefits of a free press and not speak out against censorship. These may seem like outlandish comparisons but you can find people writing a couple hundred years ago about how slavery should be abolished because they slavery is economically inefficient compared to wage labor. Maybe these economic arguments were right, but the argument seems today to be somewhere between irrelevant and offensive. Whether slavery is more or less efficient is moot; we reject slavery because it is wrong.

Now I’m not trying suggesting that these causes have equal ethical weight with software freedom. They don't. But I do believe that the free software mission is similar in kind, if not in ethical clarity and importance. As a a result, I feel that it is both justified and essential to not only speak out about the benefits of software freedom but also against those who are systematically disempowering others.

Now you may not support my position that user control over technology is an ethical issue. If you don’t, you might come to different conclusions about what are appropriate tactics and strategies for free software’s promotion. But if `