crm@rti.UUCP (05/17/84)
[] Oh, all right. I wasn't going to bother with this -- I thought Tim's case was clear enough, but I can't take much more of the abuse being directed to Tim when I don't think he's even available on the net any more. (For those who didn't notice, Tim has moved to Pittsburgh for another job; I don't know if this is permenant or a summer thing, but if Brooks had treated ME like he treated Tim, I might not come back...) First of all, Tim didn't vent his 'dirty laundry' until he had exhausted all appeals at UNC, and was leaving. It may have been un-thinking, even childish, but hell! when I read it, I was about ready to have a ceremonial burning of my copy of "Mythical Man Month" on the UNC lawn! Second, I think SOMEONE should consider the complaint that finally knocked Tim off the net -- it was apparently a complaint about the RELIGIOUS views that Tim stated on the net. Since NC is a highly rednecked state in general, I'm not too surprized that they caused trouble. However, UNC is supported by my tax dollars, and I expect them to obey the Constitutional prohibition against supporting the establishment of religion. Was anyone else removed from the net for strongly Christian views? Would we expect it to be reasonable for a Christian using a net at a *yeshiva* to be removed from the net for strong Christian beliefs? Third, note that Tim attempted a number of times to a) discover who his accusers really were b) confront them with facts rather than loose allegations c) at least get some idea what the accusation really WAS. In each attempt he was frustrated. In fact, every attempted refutation was answered by a new unsupported accusation. Finally, and I think most importantly -- any insitution of education and learning is engaged in the 'search for Truth.' The actions at UNC demonstrated that, while Brooks is willing to enjoy the benefits of a free exchange of information, he isn't willing to withstand the cost -- sometimes someone will say something that he doesn't agree with. When there has been no other attempt to screen those things that people at UNC may say, and when the final complaint SEEMS to have been mainly religious in nature, then I feel this restriction is clearly and unequivocally unethical. This unethical action I think is THE reprehensible part of the whole affair. Postscript: One argument that was raised was that the net didn't come under 'freedom of speech' prohibitions, as the airwaves don't. First of all, the airwaves should. That the gov't can control the info transmitted over the most pervasive single medium is terribly dangerous. If you don't belive it, watch TV in Germany, Spain, of from the Soviet Union. Second, I have seen my own religion, and the religions of some of my best friends, reviled and condemned on broadcast TV. This does not seem to be a violation of anyone's rights, and doing so seems to be protected by freedom of speech. 'If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander.' Also, certain religious beliefs have been themselves reviled on net.religion net.philosophy and net.flame. Some of these statements have been abusive. Should each of these people be removed from the net? Maybe the solution is that we should restrict net use to only the most innocuous topics. Do we want that? Postpostscript: I have ascribed motives to Dr. Brooks and other which may not be truely their motives. These reflect my views alone, and not those of my clients or employers. More to the point, they represent a tremendous loss of respect for Dr. Brooks and for the University of North Carolina, based on the traffic I read and what I have seen. Although Tim is an acquaintance, I *have not heard word one* from him about these things, and knew nothing until I read the net traffic. I hope that someone can convince me that Dr. Brooks either has come off worse than necessary, or that someone can show me that he reacted to unsustainable political pressure. I hate having someone who had been rather one of my heros drop so far in my estimation of his character and ethics.
myers@uwvax.UUCP (05/19/84)
>Second, I think SOMEONE should consider the complaint that finally knocked >Tim off the net -- it was apparently a complaint about the RELIGIOUS views >that Tim stated on the net. Since NC is a highly rednecked state in general, >I'm not too surprized that they caused trouble. However, UNC is supported by >my tax dollars, and I expect them to obey the Constitutional prohibition >against supporting the establishment of religion. Was anyone else removed from >the net for strongly Christian views? Would we expect it to be reasonable >for a Christian using a net at a *yeshiva* to be removed from the net for >strong Christian beliefs? > >Third, note that Tim attempted a number of times to a) discover who his >accusers really were b) confront them with facts rather than loose >allegations c) at least get some idea what the accusation really WAS. > >In each attempt he was frustrated. In fact, every attempted refutation was >answered by a new unsupported accusation. Those who are not aware of the documentation of this incident of censorship should read net.sources, which has the full transcript of the electronic messages associated with the incident. It's too bad that it isn't worth the personal hassle to Tim to take Dr. Brooks & Co. to court (with help from the ACLU); possible landmark case material. My lawyer housemate feels the case could be won if discrimination due to religious beliefs could be established. Good luck to you, Tim, wherever you is. -- Jeff Myers ARPA: myers@wisc-rsch.arpa uucp: ..{seismo, ihnp4}!wisc-rsch!myers P.S. This statement reflects only the views of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Wisconsin, nor any sub-organization thereof.
jbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (05/19/84)
I HAVE WATCHED television in Germany (West), though not in Russia or Spain. It is a lot better than in the US, unless you get cable. The Grey Mouser -- "Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd" Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
jeff@heurikon.UUCP (05/21/84)
> Those who are not aware of the documentation of this incident of censorship > should read net.sources, which has the full transcript of the electronic > messages associated with the incident. Sorry, not so. There were some things in section 4 or 5 which weren't in net.sources. For example, did anybody else notice this: Tim's only comment within the articles regards the dates of one of Brooks' last messages and the dates of the two previous messages. Tim infers that Brooks was pulling a fast one by implying that he had just been informed of Tim's unauthorized postings when the informant's messages were actually dated many days before. Well, those two previous messages were not addressed to Brooks, so they say nothing about when or how Brooks made his decision. Anyway, what does it matter exactly how much time elapses between messages? We're only seeing the electronic mail, not the total picture. -- /"""\ Jeffrey Mattox, Heurikon Corp, Madison, WI |O.O| {harpo, hao, philabs}!seismo!uwvax!heurikon!jeff (news & mail) \_=_/ ihnp4!heurikon!jeff (mail - fast)
crm@rti.UUCP (05/22/84)
Boy, you sure weren't watching the TV in the Schwartzwald...