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 campaigning." 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 fundamental 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. Free and open source software advocacy has seem attacks on proprietary software, software patents, DRM, centralized network services, and the firms behind these practices. I have supported and participated in negative campaigns on all of the issues. I've done so because I believe that if one is taking an ethical position, it is justified, often necessary, to not only speak about the benefits of the freedom but also against dispossession and disenfranchisement.

The strongest argument for these campaigns might be described through analogy. For example, should a campaign for abolishing child labor talk only about how great a value adult workers are to their employers? Should a campaign trying to abolish land mines talk only about the benefits of bomb-free fields or two lower limbs? Should afree speech organization only speak out about the benefits of a free press and against censorship? These may seem like outlandish comparisons but you can find people writing a couple centuries ago about how slavery should be abolished because 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.

More importantly, perhaps, our societies have rejected slavery so completely and universally because we have treated it as an ethical issue. Rather than having to argue that slavery is less efficient, we feel an ethical responsibility to find efficient alternatives. We've built a better a world because we felt we had to. An unamibiguous negative message was instrumental in doing so.

Now I’m not trying suggest 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 `