edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) (09/03/89)
I am tempted to reply by saying something like: "It seems that you consider the right of one person to post sniveling idiotic comments under other names to be paramount over the rights and obligations of a system administrator to preserve the availability of USENET news for 1/4 the population of the country." but instead, I will explain my reasoning: In article <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > An open letter to all usenet administrators: Ah, good; we've targeted the appropriate group. >>From article <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca>, by reggers@uwovax.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton): >>& It seems that everyone in North America, if not the entire free speaking >>& world has seen the inappropriate postings by a student by the name of >>& Alexander Pruss who goes by the handle satan. Many have been rightly >>& offended and have notified me (as news manager) as well as our postmaster. >>& In fact the Computing Centre Director has received telephone calls >>& complaining about this fellow! >>& >>& This is to advise everyone that the problem has been brought to our >>& attention and is/will be dealt with. Rest assured we do not believe that >>& this kind of behaviour is acceptable and it will not be tolerated. >>& >>& Your patience would be appreciated. >>& >>& I am, >>& >>& News Manager <usenet@uwovax.uwo.ca> Ummm, you have deleted the portion of Mr. Quinton's posting which dealt with the fact that he is running news unofficially, and thereby implying that if some fool goes out of his way to make waves for the people charged with getting the funds for keeping this project alive, then it just might get zapped. Further, you neglect the fact that in Ontario this comes on the heals of a debate amoungst those who allocate University Computing facility budgets determining whether USENET access should be condoned and financially supported by the Canadian taxpayer at all. It was rumoured to be a close decision last time. Would you prefer to have backbone after backbone drop off the 'NET? What would that do to the "rights of the user", whom you purport to defend? What would that do to "Free Speach"? You tend to suggest that the right of this one individual (Mr. Pruss) to post in his questionable fashion is much more important than the opportunity of millions of potential 'NET readers to access USENET as it precariously exists today. If Mr. Pruss's actions zapped *your* 'NET access, would you still speak as you did? >Well, to quote one of our greater statesmen, "who the hell do you >think YOU are." (Okay, so I quote only the Chirelles.) I am not he, but I speculate that he may be one instructed that he may run USENET news as long as there is no adverse publicity. >Content of messages on usenet is a priori not a concern. Delivery >of them and the nuisance of abuse of the net, however, is. Especially when the bill-payers get miffed. >The fact that Mr. Pruss wants to make satanic statements is irrelevant >to his access. The meager "offense" that some have felt at his >opinions, and expressed to you, is nothing when compared to the great >disservice to free speech and unfettered communication that you commit >by censoring Mr. Pruss. If he committed some offense directed to harm >a particular person, or for the purpose of overloading or misusing >internet resources, then you have call to perform administrative >policing of his activity. However, he didn't; therefore, you don't. Mr. Pruss apparantly (my information is based on the UWO newsadmin's posting) has performed actions which jeapordize the normal access to facilities that many currently enjoy. I fully appreciate why action to mitigate this damage has been taken. also... Mr. Pruss has no more right to access that particular machine without explicit permission than I have to remove your car from your driveway and demolish it without *your* explicit permission. The difference is that I don't claim to have a right to do so. Please investigate the concept of property rights as generally accepted by most non-communists. >I must insist that you restore his access and let the thinking people >who populate this medium decide whether to accept his writings or not. Since when is the University of Western Ontario a free public access site? Perhaps if you feel this strongly you might want to buy him a box, some software, and pay his phone bill to uunet. >I ask that all who agree insist as well, in writing. I respectfully suggest that you are way out of line. I won't tell you what to do with your property, and perhaps you may wish to reconsider your demand that others deal with *theirs* as *you* "insist". > --Blair Please note: followup to news.misc Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # This posting has absolutely nothing to do with what I do for a living.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (09/04/89)
Preface: Since my posting of the "open letter", I have been informed by persons in the decision-making element concerned with this at Mr. Pruss' site that they in fact did not eliminate his access, but rather discussed the ramifications of his writings with him, and let him decide which way to go. It is apparent to them and me that it is Mr. Pruss who has kept himself quiet since this first became a topic of derision. They have, innately, done the thing I suggested, and long before I suggested it. They have my admiration, and my apology if I caused them any concern. The discussion that has evolved, however, is not affected by these facts, as it is a general discussion of the philosophy of freedom, free speech in particular. In article <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >I am tempted to reply by saying something like: > "It seems that you consider the right of one person to post > sniveling idiotic comments under other names to be paramount > over the rights and obligations of a system administrator to > preserve the availability of USENET news for 1/4 the population > of the country." (You overestimate the importance to the average North American and distribution of Usenet, but that's impertinent.) I consider free speech to take precedence over privileged communication. A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions. The government could bomb your house for your opinions, creating imaginary emergency situations and seizing it under eminent domain in order to do so; would you consider it right that they do so? What if they said your opinion was described by your neighbors as "offensive" but could not be shown to be physically damaging? >In article <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > >> An open letter to all usenet administrators: > >Ah, good; we've targeted the appropriate group. It is they who execute these decisions. It is they who need to know. It is the rest of the net and those who saw the genesis of the problem who need to know it's been said. No group is unconcerned. (I.e., I do know when and when not to alter the newsgroups line, thank you.) >>>From article <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca>, by reggers@uwovax.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton): >>>& It seems that everyone in North America, if not the entire free speaking >>>& world has seen the inappropriate postings by a student by the name of >>>& Alexander Pruss who goes by the handle satan. Many have been rightly >>>& offended and have notified me (as news manager) as well as our postmaster. >>>& In fact the Computing Centre Director has received telephone calls >>>& complaining about this fellow! >>>& >>>& This is to advise everyone that the problem has been brought to our >>>& attention and is/will be dealt with. Rest assured we do not believe that >>>& this kind of behaviour is acceptable and it will not be tolerated. >>>& >>>& Your patience would be appreciated. >>>& >>>& I am, >>>& >>>& News Manager <usenet@uwovax.uwo.ca> > >Ummm, you have deleted the portion of Mr. Quinton's posting which dealt >with the fact that he is running news unofficially, Everyone is. Usenet news is ad hoc, unofficial; it's a parasite on the internet, which is funded to provide for communication between research interests. It is therefore very tenuous, very fragile, and likely to go poof at any second. So what? You'd stigmatize a poster and all the rest of the posters only to keep your game going? ( I can hear you saying "well, if that's how you feel, then quit reading it." I might. But not until I've spoken freely. ) >and thereby implying >that if some fool goes out of his way to make waves for the people charged >with getting the funds for keeping this project alive, then it just might >get zapped. A situation I find distasteful at least. I do not encourage flatulent posting, nor do I ask that usenet administrators encourage it. I ask only that they consider their duty to provide this forum for all opinions, free of the fear of institutionalized castigation of those opinions. You can go make mud-pies with your talk of privilege; once a medium is controlled, even by those who own it, it is no longer a place for free speech. Cf. the case of Boston's WEEI radio, where the station's news editor and another employee resigned because the owner insisted on coloring the news and on being given a special reporter to do certain stories which the owner would assign and which the news department would not be allowed to edit. Obviously they were forced to resign because of the question of ownership of the resource. Your lawyers may win this argument, but freedom and the integrity of free speech will lose, big. >Further, you neglect the fact that in Ontario this comes on the heals of >a debate amoungst those who allocate University Computing facility budgets >determining whether USENET access should be condoned and financially >supported by the Canadian taxpayer at all. > >It was rumoured to be a close decision last time. Would you prefer to >have backbone after backbone drop off the 'NET? What would that do to >the "rights of the user", whom you purport to defend? What would that >do to "Free Speach"? Eliding the medium will not eliminate the freedom. I can't be the first ever to say that when one person is refused free opinions, the freedoms of the rest are worth nothing. The people left will have nil other than their petty self-interest and the sham of freedoms that only serve as a carrot on a stick in the hands of the manipulative powers of the administration. The news would be better served by being completely dismantled than by being so tyrranized. All or none. >You tend to suggest that the right of this one individual (Mr. Pruss) to >post in his questionable fashion is much more important than the opportunity >of millions of potential 'NET readers to access USENET as it precariously >exists today. Mr. Pruss, and others like him, can be dealt with sufficiently by the scorn of the rest of the posters on the net. He is not the first person to make inane remarks in an offending tone, and he certainly will not be the last. Public censure would serve not only to punish but also to warn, and persons whose ideas are quite sound and possibly valuable may fail to make them known simply because they lack the self-confidence to introduce them into a discussion where a group of people _might_ find them offensive. If Mr. Pruss' comments had in fact made the rest of the net, and possibly the world, decide that satanism and homophobia were the correct course of human existence, would you then expect to see this discussion? No. You would hail him as if he were a messiah. Yet you insist on forcing his silence only because he spoke his mind, or some perverted subset of it. You then cause fear among current and future speakers, and the freedom of speech is beaten to death. And, you do so only in order to protect your own freedom of speech. Such widespread hypocrisy is disheartening. I may yet quit this network of fools. >If Mr. Pruss's actions zapped *your* 'NET access, would >you still speak as you did? I think I make it clear that I would. I think I made it clear long ago that I'm willing to take bullets to speak as I did. My net access is valueless without his. My speaking is meaningless without his. (If I were you, I'd consider not making fun of the "I may not agree with what you say but I'd die to protect your right to say it," cliche, since some of us actually mean it, and have backed that up with military service.) >>Well, to quote one of our greater statesmen, "who the hell do you >>think YOU are." (Okay, so I quote only the Chirelles.) > >I am not he, but I speculate that he may be one instructed that he >may run USENET news as long as there is no adverse publicity. I love it. Qualifications on speaking freely. What crap! >>Content of messages on usenet is a priori not a concern. Delivery >>of them and the nuisance of abuse of the net, however, is. > >Especially when the bill-payers get miffed. Oh. Miffed. Now there's a reason to abridge freedom. They got _miffed_. Or did they? I'm finding here a definite thread of misinterpretation of the value of this situation by those who would encourage censure. >>The fact that Mr. Pruss wants to make satanic statements is irrelevant >>to his access. The meager "offense" that some have felt at his >>opinions, and expressed to you, is nothing when compared to the great >>disservice to free speech and unfettered communication that you commit >>by censoring Mr. Pruss. If he committed some offense directed to harm >>a particular person, or for the purpose of overloading or misusing >>internet resources, then you have call to perform administrative >>policing of his activity. However, he didn't; therefore, you don't. > >Mr. Pruss apparantly (my information is based on the UWO newsadmin's >posting) has performed actions which jeapordize the normal access to >facilities that many currently enjoy. I fully appreciate why action >to mitigate this damage has been taken. "mitigate"..."damage"...like saying that amputating one's head mitigates the damage caused by a nosebleed. I assure you that UWO's _image_ has suffered more from the adverse publicity surrounding their (alleged) restrictions on Mr. Pruss than it ever could by allowing him to post infantile nonsense. Again, the value of this situation is that it is showing what freedom is worth. (You'll note that the UWO admin was ambiguous as to what he did. This, and Mr. Pruss sudden silence, have caused the impression that an account was locked. It is not the case, as I said above, and the misinterpretation thus fostered is not favorable to the image of UWO. This is the reason for my apology. I am, however, not the only person to make this mistake.) >also... > >Mr. Pruss has no more right to access that particular machine without >explicit permission than I have to remove your car from your driveway >and demolish it without *your* explicit permission. You obfuscate. Real damage must be repaired. The fact that several readers find Mr. Pruss offensive does not make it utterly damaging. See above re the damage due to the cure. >The difference is that I don't claim to have a right to do so. Please >investigate the concept of property rights as generally accepted by >most non-communists. Ad hominem and bunk. Politics is irrelevant. The law is derived from the principles, it doesn't define them. >>I must insist that you restore his access and let the thinking people >>who populate this medium decide whether to accept his writings or not. > >Since when is the University of Western Ontario a free public access >site? Perhaps if you feel this strongly you might want to buy him >a box, some software, and pay his phone bill to uunet. I suppose you would have him dragged kicking and screaming from the quad simply because he criticised the university administration and called the Provost a coprophilic pederast, and would do so before determining whether it was true or not, simply because the image of a coprophilic pederast is counter to your contented life. As for purchasing access, he did so by, as I presume he does annually, sending them the check for his tuition money. Again, your lawyers may win this one, but the lawyers don't deal in freedom, only the letters in the law books that they choose to invoke. >>I ask that all who agree insist as well, in writing. > >I respectfully suggest that you are way out of line. Your opinion is noted as inobservant and misguided. >I won't tell you what to do with your property, and perhaps you >may wish to reconsider your demand that others deal with *theirs* as >*you* "insist". Bought a slave lately? I don't have the power to insist, except rhetorically. I only point out the facts so that freedom shall not perish from this earth. --Blair "It's always nice to be given an opportunity to paraphrase Lincoln."
" Maynard) (09/04/89)
In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
264 lines of argument based on an invalid assumption: that there is such
a thing as freedom of speech on the net.
Sorry, Blair, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Them that
has the gold makes the rules. There is no more freedom of speech on any
site than those who own the system allow. If you think that there should
be freedom of speech on my site, send me $5000, and I'll sell you the
computer; otherwise, stop trying to tell me how to run it.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"The unkindest thing you can do for a hungry man is to give him food." - RAHhenry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (09/04/89)
can you please *exclude* soc.motss from the groups listed for this discussion (like i have done with this item)? this discussion has nothing to do with soc.motss anymore; instead, it has to deal with people's personal perceptions on how others should use their computing resources. thank you. # Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # <hmensch@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay> / <henry@tts.lth.se> / <mensch@munnari.oz.au>
stephen@temvax.UUCP (Stephen C. Arnold) (09/04/89)
I have some problems with Blair's concept of freedom of speech. I believe Pruss was acting outside that freedom. Here is how I see him acting outside that freedom. The first is anonymity. Pruss posted without saying who he was. Freedom of speech does not protect a person from having their identity associated with their writing. Second is harrassment. Pruss harrassed all of us by saying all of us are going to get AIDS, die and go to hell. Freedom of speech was never intended to protect the ability to harrass. A person should not be resticted about what he or she says when he or she addresses their listeners with the respect do a peer. Pruss was not acting in this way. Stephen C. Arnold UUCP!temvax!stephen I write for myself and not any organizations I am associated with.
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/04/89)
[soc.motss was removed since the discussion is clearly not relevant] stephen@temvax.UUCP (Stephen C. Arnold) writes: >I have some problems with Blair's concept of freedom of speech. I believe >Pruss was acting outside that freedom. Here is how I see him acting outside >that freedom. >The first is anonymity. Pruss posted without saying who he was. Freedom of >speech does not protect a person from having their identity associated with >their writing. This is probably true. I'm not aware of any part of the doctrine of freedom of speech that protects anonymity. Assuming other posters at his site don't have the ability to post anonymously, he shouldn't either (that's not freedom of speech, but rather equal protection). >Second is harrassment. Pruss harrassed all of us by saying all of us are >going to get AIDS, die and go to hell. Freedom of speech was never intended >to protect the ability to harrass. GONG! Wrong answer. Freedom of speech was intended, first and foremost, to protect offensive speech, including harassing speach. Without such a protection, there's no clear line at all about what is and isn't protected (after all, perhaps speech advocating tolerance of homosexual behavior, to pick an example, could be considered highly harassing by some fundamentalist groups. Does that indicate that it should be banned?) >A person should not be resticted about what he or she says when he or she >addresses their listeners with the respect do a peer. Pruss was not acting in >this way. A person who is in a position to claim freedom of speech rights should be able to use their speech without restriction, whatever form of address the use or the level of respect they use. But there is the fundamental question, separate from what Mr. Arnold has written above: should USENET postings be considered to be covered by freedom of speech? Once posted, the answer is IMHO yes. No site should refuse to carry individual postings simple because they're found offensive. On the other hand, access to posting facilities is (again IMHO) clearly not synonymous with freedom of speech. Certainly, if a site claims to offer access to "every student" or "the general public", it is highly offensive to then remove access based on posting content. But if a site offers access only to "friends of the sysadmin", "employees of the corporation", etc., only those people have any freedom of speech rights to post on that site. Or, if a site offers computer accounts only in support of a certain project, it is proper to withdraw access if the access is being used for other purposes --- IF such access is also withdrawn for anyone else with a similar account who is also misusing the account. The situation is very similar to that found in other broadcast media: print, TV, radio, etc. These organizations have absolutely no obligation to provide their services to anyone who walks in the door simply due to freedom of speech. On the other hand, if a paper decides to offer a "free expression page" --- a page where ALL opinions of a given length and format will be printed --- they cannot then remove only certain opinions because they're "offensive". USENET is like the "free expression page" --- it carries all opinions whatever they might be. But each site can decide on its own whether or not to offer access to the page in the first place. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (09/04/89)
In article <2860@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >264 lines of argument based on an invalid assumption: that there is such >a thing as freedom of speech on the net. Read on and see where you are very, very much mistaken. >Sorry, Blair, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Them that >has the gold makes the rules. There is no more freedom of speech on any >site than those who own the system allow. If you think that there should >be freedom of speech on my site, send me $5000, and I'll sell you the >computer; otherwise, stop trying to tell me how to run it. I don't tell you how to run it. You may remove as many users as you wish simply because you may do so. The buengc administrators may yank my account simply by saying, "we own this box," and I am powerless and have no controverting argument. However, if they lock me out and say "we disagree with your opinions," or "we don't let blacks use Usenet," then they are wrong. --Blair "And not just because I'm not black."
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (09/04/89)
In article <2860@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: : In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: : 264 lines of argument based on an invalid assumption: that there is such : a thing as freedom of speech on the net. : : Sorry, Blair, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Them that : has the gold makes the rules. There is no more freedom of speech on any : site than those who own the system allow. If you think that there should : be freedom of speech on my site, send me $5000, and I'll sell you the : computer; otherwise, stop trying to tell me how to run it. Agreed. But the going price for my system is $10,000. And you have to house it yourself. Why mention price? To point out that the whole thing hinges on the fact that the net exists by the grace of those property owners who have decided to contribute their hardware, time, and money to the net. And who, therefore, have the right to determine how that hardware, time, and money will be used. Or to withdraw their contribution from the net. If it were ever to occur that, solely because I'm on the net, I could be made to propagate things that I would choose not to, I would drop out of the net. Instantly. This is *my* computer. Paid for by *my* effort. You try to *tell* me how I may use it and I'll tell you where to go. You try to *make* me use it as you will and I'll treat you like the thug you are. Followups have been directed to alt.flame. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com (George Madison) (09/04/89)
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > >I consider free speech to take precedence over privileged communication. > >A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different >from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions. > Intriguing you should bring this up, since it really savages your so-called "logic". A newspaper is under no obligation to print ANYTHING sent to them; good newspapers try to stimulate rational debated, and do their best to show all facets of an issue. That DOESN'T mean that they have to print the nitwit ramblings of anyone with access to a typewriter or word processor. If someone can't get their message across in the existing papers, they are perfectly FREE to start their own. The First Amendment talks about SPEECH -- NOT the medium. It is just as much an infringement of basic rights to demand access to someone ELSE'S property for you to transmit your speech as you claim was committed against Mr. Pruss. Or perhaps you'd like someone to come drive you off your terminal to spout bigoted crap onto the Net while you're trying to meet a thesis (or other) deadline?? If you object, you're a hypocrite, since that's the exact sort of scenario you'Re advocating. |George Madison, a/k/a George The Bear Cub, a/k/a Furr ** BEAR POWER **| |gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com 8-{)> ames!elroy!gryphon!pnet02!gmadison| |GEnie: GEORGE.M Arctophiles & Barbophiles Unite! PLink: BEARDLOVER| "When I'm with you I don't know whether I should study neurosurgery or go to see the Care Bears Movie..." -- _You Make Me_, "Weird Al"
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (09/05/89)
In article <188@temvax.UUCP> stephen@temvax.UUCP (Stephen C. Arnold) writes: > >I have some problems with Blair's concept of freedom of speech. I believe >Pruss was acting outside that freedom. Here is how I see him acting outside >that freedom. You need glasses. >The first is anonymity. Pruss posted without saying who he was. >Freedom of speech does not protect a person from having their identity >associated with their writing. Wrong in the extreme. Freedom of speech includes making up names for yourself to protect yourself from the violence of your opponents. >Second is harrassment. Pruss harrassed all of us by saying all of us >are going to get AIDS, die and go to hell. Freedom of speech was never >intended to protect the ability to harrass. Many of us are going to get AIDS, all of us are going to die, and hell is moot. Not even when all three are wished on the same person do they add up to a reason to limit the speaker's freedom. Your offense at those things is not even relevant to the freedom with which he should speak them. You are harrassing me by telling me what I may say. Should you be censored? >A person should not be resticted about what he or she says when he or >she addresses their listeners with the respect do a peer. Pruss was >not acting in this way. Utter garbage. Feudalism is the reason we don't do feudalism anymore. Contempt for the thoughts and deeds of others is the thing protected by freedom to speak in disagreement. The manner in which the speech is made is likewise not important. If you are offended, you may seek punitive remuneration from Mr. Pruss, but you do not have the right to silence him. Further, do you consider yourself Mr. Pruss' peer? I do not consider you his peer. He may be an idiot and a pervert, but he knows how to exercise basic human rights, and you do not. This perverse idiot is miles above you. --Blair "No pain, no gain."
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (09/05/89)
In article <19438@gryphon.COM> gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com (George Madison) writes: >bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >> >>I consider free speech to take precedence over privileged communication. >> >>A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different >>from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions. > >Intriguing you should bring this up, since it really savages your so-called >"logic". A newspaper is under no obligation to print ANYTHING sent to them; >good newspapers try to stimulate rational debated, and do their best to show >all facets of an issue. The news itself is not opinion. I speak of columnists. They are hired to speak opinion. Are they fired when they do? Are you impressed with the management of the paper when that happens? >That DOESN'T mean that they have to print the nitwit ramblings of >anyone with access to a typewriter or word processor. If someone can't >get their message across in the existing papers, they are perfectly >FREE to start their own. He did. He wrote and posted to the net. On the net, everyone is his own editor. If a person is a little loose, I am sure that the rest of us can inform him his editorial style is not appreciated. Imagine what the editor of the Boston Herald would say if you said that. Imagine asking the Mayor to prevent him from using the streets of Boston to drive his delivery trucks. Imagine Ray Flynn actually listening to you. Imagine the enourmously successful lawsuit the Herald would bring. >The First Amendment talks about SPEECH -- NOT the medium. Then the medium is irrelevant, and granting him the excess capacity of yours and then denying him that acces simply because you disagree with him is a violation of his freedom to speak. >It is just as much an infringement of basic rights to demand access to >someone ELSE'S property for you to transmit your speech as you claim >was committed against Mr. Pruss. Which is not what was done. What was done was to punish the person for using previously granted access because of his speaking. >Or perhaps you'd like someone to come drive you off your terminal to >spout bigoted crap onto the Net while you're trying to meet a thesis >(or other) deadline?? If this terminal were that important and dear to me, then I would allow not one byte of network news to cross its interfaces. Neither the (alleged) "bigoted crap" nor the fluid eloquence of a cogent argument nor the intermittent hilarity of rec.humor.funny. Otherwise, as long as I don't need the keyboard, you can post that you think my terminal is a portal to hell, that I am satan himself, and that my family, my friends, my coworkers, and my university are the monkeys that brought the AIDS virus from the laboratories in Africa where we perfected it. I would calmly watch you do it (whilst finishing my lunch), then I would prove you wrong. I would not kick you out of the chair, unless I needed the terminal to continue my work. If I determined that your posting took up an otherwise necessary portion of my disk, I would wipe it clean, even if it claimed that I was twice the man Winston Churchill or Carl Yastrzemski ever were. It's my computer, I may manage it as a computer. I am not right to exploit it's network connectivity as a psychological tool to coerce your agreement with me. >If you object, you're a hypocrite, since that's >the exact sort of scenario you're advocating. If I do not object, I am doomed to enslavement of my mind by the tyrants who accept that they may tell me what not to say. Go reread my response to your last comment; which of us is the hypocrite? --Blair "'I'm losing, and it's my ball, so you're a cheater, so you can't play with any of us any more...' Six-year-olds understand this sort of thing. Why can't you?"
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/05/89)
As has been pointed out *many* times before, freedom of *speech* is not the proper model for the net. Freedom of the *press* is. You no more have the "right" to post anything you want from *someone else's* site than you do to publish anything you want on someone else's press/radio_station/tv_station. If a site wishes to revoke someone's access, that is the same as a paper refusing to accept an articler for publication. If you want unrestricted posting, get your own machine. You do *not* have the right to use *someone else's* resources (and name!) to spread your views. Under this model, the only time you'd be violating rights is the *rare* occasion when someone starts canceling somebody else's postings. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/05/89)
In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
<A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different
<from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions.
Guess what, people are barred from *a* newspaper for their opinions all
the time. It's known as "freedom of the press". Nobody but the publisher
can tell an editor what to print.
There are so many papers that barring someone from "the newspapers" is
a totally nonsensical idea. Likewise barring someone from "the net" is
not possible. You can *always* find a site that is willing to let you
post. Examples of this abound (MES comes to mind...)
You have no more right to tell a site adminstrator how to run his site
than you do to tell an editor how to run his paper. He can exclude any
views he wishes to. (the fairness doctrine on the broadcast media was
an aberration). Freedom of the press means you can publish *your* views
no matter how biased. But you may have to do it on your own "press".
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Shortsparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (09/05/89)
Wusses) Summary: Expires: References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> <188@temvax.UUCP> <1989Sep3.225305.9042@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) Followup-To: news.misc Distribution: Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. Keywords: In article <1989Sep3.225305.9042@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John L. Coolidge) writes: >>Second is harrassment. Pruss harrassed all of us by saying all of us are >>going to get AIDS, die and go to hell. Freedom of speech was never intended >>to protect the ability to harrass. > >GONG! Wrong answer. Freedom of speech was intended, first and foremost, >to protect offensive speech, including harassing speach. > Run down the street, yelling obscenities at passerbys. You will be arrested for 'disturbing the peace'. I do agree with the rest of your article. >The situation is very similar to that found in other broadcast media: >print, TV, radio, etc. These organizations have absolutely no obligation >to provide their services to anyone who walks in the door simply due to >freedom of speech. On the other hand, if a paper decides to offer a >"free expression page" --- a page where ALL opinions of a given length >and format will be printed --- they cannot then remove only certain >opinions because they're "offensive". USENET is like the "free expression >page" --- it carries all opinions whatever they might be. But each site >can decide on its own whether or not to offer access to the page in the >first place. > >--John -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) (09/05/89)
In article <2592@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >views he wishes to. (the fairness doctrine on the broadcast media was >an aberration). ... ... and one sorely missed, I'm afraid. >"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. >Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short Or the net? spl -- Steve Lamont, sciViGuy EMail: spl@ncsc.org NCSC, Box 12732, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 "Surrealism only comes later when it seems 'reality' becomes difficult to achieve." - E. Miya, NASA Ames Research Center
gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com (George Madison) (09/06/89)
spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes: >In article <2592@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: >>views he wishes to. (the fairness doctrine on the broadcast media was >>an aberration). ... > >... and one sorely missed, I'm afraid. Indeed. I can buy myself a cheap photocopier and run off flyers saying pretty much anything I want. Acquiring a radio or TV station is just a tad harder. |George Madison, a/k/a George The Bear Cub, a/k/a Furr ** BEAR POWER **| |gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com 8-{)> ames!elroy!gryphon!pnet02!gmadison| |GEnie: GEORGE.M Arctophiles & Barbophiles Unite! PLink: BEARDLOVER| "When I'm with you I don't know whether I should study neurosurgery or go to see the Care Bears Movie..." -- _You Make Me_, "Weird Al"
HERSCHEL@AUVM.BITNET (Herschel Browne) (09/07/89)
Blair P. Houghten, I hope I haven't misspelled your name, but you've made my day. At LAST, someone has written on this subject with the fervor and cogency it deserves. I found your article to be right on the mark all the way through, and the things that you called crap were indeed crap, and the posters of the crap will, I hope, not whine about being flamed. What really pisses me off in this discussion is the introduction of "property rights" considerations....So and so may have a right to say anything he likes, but the university of such and such doesn't have a duty to subsidize it; now THAT is crap. A university really DOES have a duty to make possible unfettered communication. Perhaps a for-profit corporation doesn't, but I wish they would all go away anyway. I don't mean away from this network, I mean away from the face of the earth. The point these property-rights folks make is that the owner of the property (in this case, the computing equipment that makes net-access possible) have a right to determine what use their property is put to. Well, in a legalistic sense, they do. It's unfortunate, but they do. That doesn't vitiate the free-speech aspect of the situation, it merely underscores the fact that ownership (in this case of the means of communication, but means of production is still an apt phrase) may be used to thwart the substantive exercise of the freedoms to which these folks presumably pay lip-service. What they're really paying their homage to is power, not freedom. If the university of such-and-such has the POWER to deprive someone of the opportunity to communicate freely, then they have the (moral) right to do so. Enough to make a guy like me puke. The university of thus-and-such surely has the power to silence "satan's" voice. That doesn't make it right for it to so, and the power thus exercised does NOT make the free-speech issue go away. It would merely demonstrate, as if further demonstration were necessary, that our culture values property over every other value. Surely universities, of all our institutions, should rise above THAT. Right? Whenever someone is silenced because of the content of what he's saying, we should all take notice, because the content of what WE'RE saying might be the next thing to be found distasteful to the people with the power to silence us. H.
foo@titan.rice.edu (Mark Hall) (09/07/89)
RUMOR AT THE BOTTOM Hershel Browne sez: >What really pisses me off in this discussion is the introduction of >"property rights" considerations....So and so may have a right to say >anything he likes, but the university of such and such doesn't have >a duty to subsidize it; now THAT is crap. A university really DOES >have a duty to make possible unfettered communication. Where did you get this idea? Yes, Pruss can say what he wants. No, he does not have the "right" to have his ideas send around the world at others' expense AGAINST THEIR WISHES. If you don't believe this, let's turn the tables: I want to send a postcard espousing my views to every household in the US. I want YOU to pay for it. OK? Surely you don't want to infringe on my right to express myself. It is your DUTY to subsidize me. Did you buy that? It is your argument. >Perhaps a >for-profit corporation doesn't, but I wish they would all go away >anyway. I don't mean away from this network, I mean away from the >face of the earth. Yes, Let's go back to the stone age. >The point these property-rights folks make is that the owner of the >property (in this case, the computing equipment that makes net-access >possible) have a right to determine what use their property is put >to. Well, in a legalistic sense, they do. It's unfortunate, but >they do. Yeah, property rights are such a pain for people who want everything given to them without having to work for it. > That doesn't vitiate the free-speech aspect of the >situation, it merely underscores the fact that ownership (in this >case of the means of communication, but means of production is >still an apt phrase) may be used to thwart the substantive exercise >of the freedoms to which these folks presumably pay lip-service. >What they're really paying their homage to is power, not freedom. >If the university of such-and-such has the POWER to deprive >someone of the opportunity to communicate freely, then they have >the (moral) right to do so. Enough to make a guy like me puke. >The university of thus-and-such surely has the power to silence >"satan's" voice. Of course, they didn't. But admitting that would take away your reason for whining on the net, wouldn't it? They do NOT have the power to silence satans voice. They can only control their own facilities. So all your self-flaggelation about how the powerful are evilly silencing Pruss is meaningless. >That doesn't make it right for it to so, and the >power thus exercised does NOT make the free-speech issue go away. >It would merely demonstrate, as if further demonstration were >necessary, that our culture values property over every other value. >Surely universities, of all our institutions, should rise above >THAT. Right? Wrong. I am sure you have property which you want to control. (If not, please ship it all to me. I want to use it for a "Socialist Bonfire" and wienie roast next week.) Either you like property rights, or you don't. If you don't, please give up all claims to property. Put up or shut up. > Whenever someone is silenced because of the content >of what he's saying, we should all take notice, because the content >of what WE'RE saying might be the next thing to be found distasteful >to the people with the power to silence us. > H. (1) Again, he was not silenced. (2) No one has the power to silence Pruss. (3) Hypocritical views on property rights merely make the holder the target of ridicule. Now, could we get all this crap off the network? (or at least out of talk.rumors? ) RUMOR: Jim Bakker was found to be sane when his first words upon entering the psychiatric ward for testing last week were: "How did I do? Do you think they bought it?"
swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) (09/07/89)
In article <89250.001226HERSCHEL@AUVM> HERSCHEL@AUVM.BITNET (Herschel Browne) writes: [...] >a duty to subsidize it; now THAT is crap. A university really DOES >have a duty to make possible unfettered communication. Perhaps a >for-profit corporation doesn't, but I wish they would all go away >anyway. I don't mean away from this network, I mean away from the >face of the earth. [...] Give me a break. The only nations where for-profit corporations have been abolished are no longer able to even feed their own populations. In order to survive they are forced to once again recognize private property and the right to profit from one's own possessions. Human nature is such that people refuse to spend their lives working when there is no direct tangible benefit to themselves as a result of their labor. Your wish to remove profit oriented corporations from the earth reveals the bankrupt motive for your argument. It also reveals a foolish lack of understanding of basic human nature, as well as a frightening refusal to learn anything from the history of the nations that now exist. As for net censorship, I expect that behavior that is damaging to the organization that is funding the net connection will generate a response of some kind from them. Every organization, for-profit or not, tends to fight for its own reputation and ultimately for its survival. Those organizations that are not responsive cease to exist. This is not a moral question, merely a fact of reality. Obviously these are my opinions and not those of my employers. --Steve ------------------------------------------------------------------------- {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
HERSCHEL@AUVM.BITNET (Herschel Browne) (09/08/89)
In article <1682@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) says: > >Human >nature is such that people refuse to spend their lives working when >there is no direct tangible benefit to themselves as a result of their >labor. > >Your wish to remove profit oriented corporations from the earth reveals >the bankrupt motive for your argument. It also reveals a foolish lack >of understanding of basic human nature, as well as a frightening refusal >to learn anything from the history of the nations that now exist. > Well, maybe "work" isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway. Perhaps we should look at the other species and see what they do. Do otters, or brown bears, or dolphins make some distinction between "work" and "play"? Obviously not. Yet they get along, up to the point where their interests conflict with ours. But sigh, there goes someone else calling me names. I don't know why this seems necessary to so many people. "Foolish lack of understanding", "frightening refusal to learn", etc....why must we speak in such terms? As it happens, I've spent the greater part of my life as a grown-up studying history. As a sophisticate in that particular discipline, I know that history offers no simple lessons, and that the people who make pronouncements like "refusal to learn anything from the history of the nations that now exist", in presupposing that "history" somehow validates their beliefs, simply don't understand how history works, or willfully falsify the things that history actually can teach us. I also have learned that appeals to "human nature" are generally thinly disguised justifications of the status quo. The study of history has taught ME that "human nature" is a social product; that is to say, it is a historical artifact. What people believe to be "human nature" has a history; it is not immutable. And of course, it is generally ideologically tainted. You say that human nature is such-and-such because you believe that the things thus explained and/or excused are okay. Well, history shows me that people have always made such appeals, but that the "human nature" to which they have appealed wasn't always the same--it undergoes metamorphoses as the ground of argument shifts. History is the mother's milk of my mind; please don't tell me I refuse to learn its lessons because you think it OFFERS lessons to support your point of view, and offers none to support mine. It really doesn't work that way. If you have labored in history's vineyards as I have, you will know what I'm talking about. H.
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (09/08/89)
In article <1682@convex.UUCP> swarren@eugene.UUCP (Steve Warren) writes: >In article <89250.001226HERSCHEL@AUVM> HERSCHEL@AUVM.BITNET (Herschel Browne) writes: >Give me a break. The only nations where for-profit corporations have >been abolished are no longer able to even feed their own populations. Neither are most of the rest. You confuse many things with for-profit-economy efficacy. Take a course or two in Development Economics, then we can discuss this as an argument of opinion, rather than forcing my pedantry into the open. Meanwhile, economics isn't the issue. It's completely irrelevant, except as a lame rationalization of the corporate desire to silence sedition. It doesn't justify censorship of a free person. None of us is owned, whether employed or not. A corporate entity does not have the right to force its employees to speak or not to speak. (I know. You're going to come back with trite whining of "well, you don't have to work there, you know." I wish it were so for most people. They don't even earn the moral dignity that comes from losing a job for a cause, they just get laid off. You don't have to work anywhere, except maybe the first place that guarantees your family its food. The coercion implicit in that tenuous situation at most jobs is enough to keep the workers blind, deaf, and dumb.) >In order to survive they are forced to once again recognize private >property and the right to profit from one's own possessions. Human >nature is such that people refuse to spend their lives working when >there is no direct tangible benefit to themselves as a result of their >labor. And this, of course, is sufficient cause to eliminate freedom. Human nature is such that when large entities begin to take away our power to control our own destinies we band together by the force of our voices and revolt against those tyrants. We are about fifty years overdue for a revolution, and it's attitudes like yours that will make us want to have one. Keep it up. >Your wish to remove profit oriented corporations from the earth reveals >the bankrupt motive for your argument. It also reveals a foolish lack >of understanding of basic human nature, as well as a frightening refusal >to learn anything from the history of the nations that now exist. And this, of course, is sufficient cause to eliminate freedom. (Irrelevant note: it also sounds a lot like the "reasons we hate the Jews" speeches Hitler gave. Lots of prejudice based on incomplete historical analyses. It ain't quite the same level of hysteria, but it's the same basic shade of yellow.) >As for net censorship, I expect that behavior that is damaging to the >organization that is funding the net connection will generate a response >of some kind from them. Every organization, for-profit or not, tends >to fight for its own reputation and ultimately for its survival. Those >organizations that are not responsive cease to exist. This is not a >moral question, merely a fact of reality. And this, of course, is sufficient cause to eliminate freedom. You are saying that capitalism -- free economy -- is anathema to free speech and thereby to free thought. Someone ought to tell Thomas Jefferson he got it backwards. [Disclaimer??] >Obviously these are my opinions and not those of my employers. MY ASS! You're saying exactly the sort of thing that they would dearly pay a public relations staff to devise. Obviously, you don't have a very sure awareness of your opinions. --Blair "I would hope that BU would be proud to see one of its own arguing against its corporacy."
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/09/89)
In article <19531@gryphon.COM> gmadison@pnet02.gryphon.com (George Madison) writes: <spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes: <>In article <2592@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: <>>views he wishes to. (the fairness doctrine on the broadcast media was <>>an aberration). ... <> <>... and one sorely missed, I'm afraid. < <Indeed. I can buy myself a cheap photocopier and run off flyers saying pretty <much anything I want. Acquiring a radio or TV station is just a tad harder. Actually, you can get a "carrier current" radio station license fairly easily. And the equipment is in the same price range as a 286 clone. It broadcasts over the *power lines* and the rules limiting it result in ranges of a few miles. All the listens know is that it comes in better on the radio plugged into the wall, than on the walkman. You *can* run a neighhorhood radio station! -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short
root@simasd.UUCP (Jay Curtis) (09/10/89)
In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >The discussion that has evolved, however, is not affected by these >facts, as it is a general discussion of the philosophy of freedom, >free speech in particular. > >I consider free speech to take precedence over privileged communication. > >A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different >from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions. > Fist, losing an account on ONE machine does not equate to being "barred from the net". There is no net-wide edict saying that this person is not allowed to have an account or to post. That person would just have to make arrangements to use an account on another machine. There isn't a system on the net that scans the contents of all the postings and refuses to forward them because of their contents or authors. (Okay, at least none that *I* know of. 8) ) >You can go make mud-pies with your talk of privilege; once a medium is >controlled, even by those who own it, it is no longer a place for free >speech. You are right, as far as you go. Yes free speech is a right. However, No-one is going to tell me that I have to propogate YOUR ideas at my expense. If I own a publishing company, I don't have to print and distribute your ideas. I have the right to say find another publisher. I am providing a service. Other people also provide this service. >(If I were you, I'd consider not making fun of the "I may not agree >with what you say but I'd die to protect your right to say it," cliche, >since some of us actually mean it, and have backed that up with >military service.) > A lot of people have served in the U.S. Military. I am one of them. I am also a Sys. Admin on a machine running Usenet news. As such, I understand the problems of the administration at this site. I am allowed to run Usenet news on this system only so long as I can keep it out of the limelight. This means that I have to be very sensitive to the responses to articles posted from my site. It is real easy to sit back and say "I may not agree...say it". Damned hard when the burden of responsibility is on you! Just having been in the service doesn't give you the right to criticize other peoples efforts in this area. There are way to many hypocrits hiding behind this line of reasoning as it is! > >>Since when is the University of Western Ontario a free public access >>site? Perhaps if you feel this strongly you might want to buy him >>a box, some software, and pay his phone bill to uunet. > >As for purchasing access, he did so by, as I presume he does annually, >sending them the check for his tuition money. Again, your lawyers >may win this one, but the lawyers don't deal in freedom, only the >letters in the law books that they choose to invoke. > My understanding from the colleges in California is that you are purchasing computer time for School related work. Usenet news does not in most cases qualify. It is a benefit, an added bonus that could very well go away if the management were made to believe that it was more of a liability than not. Colleges have a hell of a time getting sufficient funding to provide the services that they do. In this time of constant budget cuts, Usenet news cannot afford any adverse publicity at most installations. >>I won't tell you what to do with your property, and perhaps you >>may wish to reconsider your demand that others deal with *theirs* as >>*you* "insist". > >Bought a slave lately? > I am disappointed. This is a common tactic used by people who really have no arguement to offer. If you can't find a comeback related to the current arguement, bring up a highly inflamitory, offensive subject and try to link it to the opposition! Really, Blair, I had expected better from you. >I don't have the power to insist, except rhetorically. I only point >out the facts so that freedom shall not perish from this earth. > Freedom has not perished. Anyone who loses their account on a particular machine is "free" to either purchase his own machine or make arrangements for an account on someone else's machine. Evidence of this is the infamous Clay Bond of soc.motss, alt.sex fame. When his account was removed, he aquired an account on another machine and is still active on Usenet. > --Blair > "It's always nice to be given > an opportunity to paraphrase > Lincoln."