richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) (11/21/88)
Gary, let's please not speculate on what I might or might not do -- I have simply given Brad Templeton notice that if he cannot find sufficient control to be reasonably selective by himself, I am inclined to take further action. I haven't said what that action is. As it so happens, I have been informed that Brad Templeton in fact owns his firm, so there doesn't appear to be a question of contacting his employer (there may be other options, though.) But let us take that particular case: If I were an employer, I would certainly want to know if one of my employees were sending out racially offensive material using *my* equipment, and I would certainly regard it as my right to tell that employee to stop doing so. Part of "freedom of speech" is the opportunity to inform affected communities of what is going on. If someone would be ashamed at an employer having that knowledge, then it is an indication that the material in question is socially unacceptable. This is no more an attempt at "censorship" than Mr. Templeton's decisions to reject jokes he does not find to be amusing. One person might argue that Mr. Templeton should be selective only to the extent of rejecting boring submissions; another might say he should exclude racist material. It is all a matter of selectivity, and I believe it involves judgment. As I said in an earlier posting, I very much support the right of freedom of speech, but that is rarely the only "right" under consideration. The right of ethnic and religious groups to not feel persecuted is another and, by the way, Canadian law is much stricter on this than American law. Mr. Templeton happens to live in Canada, so we should consider the Canadian case as well as the American one. My overall preference would be for Mr. Templeton to show some moderation, then I could forget about the whole matter. I certainly agree that good judgement with free will is the best way to go.
numork@ndsuvax.UUCP (James Mork) (11/21/88)
In article <8086@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >Gary, let's please not speculate on what I might or might not do -- >I have simply given Brad Templeton notice that if he cannot find >sufficient control to be reasonably selective by himself, I am >inclined to take further action. I haven't said what that action is. > ----------------------------------- But is anybody up for offers on the TV movie rights? -- UUCP Bitnet Internet uunet!ndsuvax!numork numork@ndsuvax numork@plains.nodak.edu #! rnews 827 Relay
war@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Andy R.) (11/21/88)
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes:
[well, you saw it so why repost it?]
Until now, and like (I'll bet) so many others, I've been sitting on
the side watching the flames roll past.
Until now, that is.
Johnathans thinly disguised threats to "take action" smack
of the MES/TIMBO "I'll sue" syndrome. And while I may or may
not agree with the way Brad moderates rec.humor.funny,
I find it much the concept of somebody trying to take the
net to an employer and crying "I'll sue UNLESS. .." much
more offensive than ANYTHING I've seen reposted by Brad.
I would like to place in nomination the name. . .
Andy R.
war@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com
The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. I do not
speak for this company, nor represent it (or its opinions).
--
I dared and just look. . .rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rev. Bob) (11/22/88)
In article <8086@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >My overall preference would be for Mr. Templeton to show some moderation, >then I could forget about the whole matter. I certainly agree that >good judgement with free will is the best way to go. Well, you might be able to forget about it. Mr Templeton (If he knows what's good for him) had better preapprove those jokes with ME, so I can tell him which jokes, would offend MY brand of Christianity. My people don't approve of any postings relating to SEX, DRUGS, ROCK MUSIC, JUDAISM, ISLAM, CATHOLISM, DEVIL worship or other satanistic practices. This stuff is just morally offensive, and as Nancy Gould said (a bit of a paraphrase here), "If it offends someone why post at all?" A member of our group is preparing a MORALITY TEST for all the USENET moderators (and potential moderators) to take to see if they are fit for the job. Mr Richmond is right. The moderators need some guidance and my group is here to help. Rev. Bob
engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) (11/22/88)
The problem is not with the jokes posted, nor is it with the policy of posting these jokes. The problem is the attitude expressed by several people of "If you don't like it, don't read it!". This policy fails to address the main issue at hand which is that many discriminatory remarks can help build and reinforce real discriminatory tendencies. Thus telling people not to read so that they won't be offended does not address the problem, as the problem is with the people who read and begin to believe, or are buttressed in their belief that, the characteristics and stereotypes in the joke or story are true, and then go and act on these beliefs. And should you believe that net.people are good, honest, non-discriminatory folk, I should point you at comp.ai, where someone who posted an ordinary post was flamed from a number of people about his posting, in racial terms. I am not calling for censorship of rec.humor.funny. I am, however, calling for an honest recognition of the effects that postings may have, and an honest attempt to act accordingly. -Sean- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Yale Department of Computer Science 51 Prospect St. New Haven, CT 06520 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The frame problem and the problem of formalizing our intuiutions about inductive relevance are, in every important respect, the same thing. It is just as well, perhaps, that people working on the frame problem in AI are unaware that this is so. One imagines the expression of horror that flickers across their CRT-illuminated faces as the awful facts sink in. What could they do but "down-tool" and become philosophers? One feels for them. Just think of the cut in pay! -- Jerry Fodor (Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres)