YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) (11/29/88)
Dear "Net-people":
I just (today) forwarded Nancy M. Gould's "e-HATE-mail" ("____ OFF
YOU JEWISH _____") to "Erik E. Fair (USENET News Admin.)"
<usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> and Gene Spafford <spaf@purdue.edu>, two of
USENET's so-called "net.gods", with the note below.
I believe the vile personal (and anti-Semitic) attack she was
subjected to exceeds even the 7 NOV 87 "Ginsburg affair", perpetrated by
Eric Mading of Wisconsin,
(for those who don't remember, "So Doug Ginsburg likes his reefer. That
doesn't surprise me, he is a Jew. I think Ronnie should tell this pot-
smoking Jew to get his ___ out of the country and deport him to Israel,
where he belongs." This is a verbatim quote of article 1232@puff.wisc
.edu)
which drew widespread deserved condemnation and calls for the revocation
of Mading's network privileges (his account was revoked on 10 Nov 87,
and then was restored on 12 NOV 87).
As such, I feel it should be dealt with even more strongly.
Here is the note I sent:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Messrs. Fair and Spafford:
I neither know, nor care to know, who sent such disgusting garbage
as the e-mail I now forward to you with great regret. Nancy Gould, its
unfortunate recipient, does, and should you be interested, you can ask
her.
This lamentable state of affairs has evidently come about as a
result of the storm generated over the posting of one or more jokes to
rec.humor.funny, moderated by Brad Templeton, which were seen by some as
anti-Semitic. I have already requested the advice and/or assistance of
both of you gentlemen in this matter. The protests have evidently been
seen by some (many?) as overreaction (about that I have no comment), and
by yet others as a cause for great anger and the outpouring of hatred,
as this e-mail I forward illustrates.
While I fully realize that "net.gods" are not to be mentioned in the
same breath as G-d, who actually runs this universe of ours, I appeal to
both of you to use whatever influence you do have to help end this sorry
state of affairs.
I don't believe anyone in this great country of ours, Jew or Gentile,
will deny the existence of anti-Semitism in the USA. Can we not keep it
off the net?
Yours truly,
Yaakov Kayman (yzkcu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
What do you people "out there" think?
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky the flock
Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain."roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (11/29/88)
YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > What do you people "out there" think? I think people should stop jumping up and down and get on with their lives. Of course, if your life consists of seeking out Great Injustices where they don't exist, so be it. If there has been anti-semitism on rec.humor.funny, it must be pretty subtle since I didn't even notice it until people started screaming and yelling about it. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) (11/30/88)
In article <3616@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) says: > >YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: >> What do you people "out there" think? > > I think people should stop jumping up and down and get on with their >lives. Of course, if your life consists of seeking out Great Injustices >where they don't exist, so be it. If there has been anti-semitism on >rec.humor.funny, it must be pretty subtle since I didn't even notice it until >people started screaming and yelling about it. >-- >Roy Smith, System Administrator >Public Health Research Institute I'd like to make it *quite* clear that the Jew-hatred on the net that I refer to is *NOT* the original Jewish-Scottish joke (see r.h.f. if you must if you don't remember that one, or e-mail Brad Templeton), but rather the vile anti-Semitic profanity directed at Nancy Gould as a result of this "tempest in a teapot". The original joke was offensive, but not terribly so. I normally try very hard to avoid profanity, sometimes with more success than at other times, but "F___ OFF YOU JEWISH B____" is anything but a joke, and deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms by responsible adults, who have a moral obligation to discourage deliberately offensive behavior. Humor that is deliberately offensive tends to bring out the worst in people. Do we not now see that? -------- Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky the flock Internet: YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain." #! rnews 687 Relay-Version: V
Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich) (11/30/88)
In article <3616@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri (Roy Smith) writes: >YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: >> What do you people "out there" think? > > I think people should stop jumping up and down and get on with their >lives. Of course, if your life consists of seeking out Great Injustices >where they don't exist, so be it. If there has been anti-semitism on >rec.humor.funny, it must be pretty subtle since I didn't even notice it until >people started screaming and yelling about it. You are missing the context of Yaakov's post. His post is referring to some e-mail sent to Nancy Gould that (according to her -- I haven't seen it) told her to "f*ck off you Jewish b*tch." I agree wholeheartedly about the R.H.F. posts. The mail that Nancy describes is another matter, and THAT is what Yaakov was referring to. Bruce Krulwich
harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) (11/30/88)
In article <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM>, YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: [Mr. Kayman reports that he has forwarded "e-HATE-mail" originally] [addressed to Nancy M. Gould to two "net.gods". He assesses it as] [viler than a previous posting by Eric Mading concerning Douglas ] [Ginsburg] >which drew widespread deserved condemnation and calls for the revocation >of Mading's network privileges (his account was revoked on 10 Nov 87, >and then was restored on 12 NOV 87). I found the reported remarks to be vile and racist, but I am dismayed that Mr. Mading's account was revoked for his exercise of his Constitutional rights. I'm glad to see that upon reflection, his account was restored. >As such, I feel it should be dealt with even more strongly. How so, Mr. Kayman? Make yourself plain. >Here is the note I sent: [Salutation, expressions of disgust, and a brief history of the racist] [joke controversy and Mr. Kayman's previous actions elided.] > While I fully realize that "net.gods" are not to be mentioned in the >same breath as G-d, who actually runs this universe of ours, I appeal to >both of you to use whatever influence you do have to help end this sorry >state of affairs. > > I don't believe anyone in this great country of ours, Jew or Gentile, >will deny the existence of anti-Semitism in the USA. Can we not keep it >off the net? Can it be done? Perhaps. Should it be done? Never. The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution. Mr. Kayman, your urging of censorship is just as abhorrent as any expression of racism. Please reconsider: accept your responsibilities to this great country along with your freedoms in it. There will be things said that you don't want to hear. You in turn will say things that others don't want to hear. Let's all respect one another and merely turn away when we don't like what's being said. >Yours truly, [part of closing elided.] > > What do you people "out there" think? > >Yaakov K. I think you should show your colors, Mr. Kayman. Are you in fact asking for censorship? Your posting can certainly be read that way. I deplore vicious personal attacks and hate mail. I strongly deplore racism of all forms. Even more strongly, I love our freedoms under the Constitution. The senders of electronic hate mail should be treated the same way the senders of poison pen letters and the makers of harassing telephone calls are treated. When they break specific laws, they should be prosecuted. Punishment of specific offenses, not broad censorship, is the answer. Racism cannot, alas, be legislated away. Neither can it be shouted, nor even bullied away. Teach your children well, set a good example, and hope for the best.
engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) (11/30/88)
In article <577@oravax.UUCP>, harper@oravax (Doug Harper) writes: >In article <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM>, YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > >[Mr. Kayman reports that he has forwarded "e-HATE-mail" originally] >[addressed to Nancy M. Gould to two "net.gods". He assesses it as] >[viler than a previous posting by Eric Mading concerning Douglas ] >[Ginsburg] > >>which drew widespread deserved condemnation and calls for the revocation >>of Mading's network privileges (his account was revoked on 10 Nov 87, >>and then was restored on 12 NOV 87). > >I found the reported remarks to be vile and racist, but I am dismayed >that Mr. Mading's account was revoked for his exercise of his >Constitutional rights. I'm glad to see that upon reflection, his >account was restored. [ elision ] >Can it be done? Perhaps. Should it be done? Never. >The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution. May I ask the esteemed gentleman in what Article or Amendment to our Constitution it is written that a man has the right to unlimited access and expression on the net? To pursue `reductio ad absurdum', do I then have the right to demand my right of free expression on the local television station to foment rebellion against the government of these United States? >Mr. Kayman, your urging of censorship is just as abhorrent as any >expression of racism. Please reconsider: accept your responsibilities >to this great country along with your freedoms in it. There will be >things said that you don't want to hear. You in turn will say things >that others don't want to hear. Let's all respect one another and >merely turn away when we don't like what's being said. > >I think you should show your colors, Mr. Kayman. Are you in fact >asking for censorship? Your posting can certainly be read that way. > >I deplore vicious personal attacks and hate mail. I strongly deplore >racism of all forms. Even more strongly, I love our freedoms under the >Constitution. > >The senders of electronic hate mail should be treated the same way the >senders of poison pen letters and the makers of harassing telephone >calls are treated. When they break specific laws, they should be >prosecuted. Punishment of specific offenses, not broad censorship, is >the answer. Prosecution was not called for, my dear sir. What was called for was that this incident be brought to the attention of the bigot's sysadmin, for him to deal with in an appropriate manner. It was not suggested that the man be thrown in jail. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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)
saal@sfsup.UUCP (S.Saal) (11/30/88)
In article <3616@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: >> What do you people "out there" think? > I think people should stop jumping up and down and get on with their >lives. Of course, if your life consists of seeking out Great Injustices >where they don't exist, so be it. If there has been anti-semitism on >rec.humor.funny, it must be pretty subtle since I didn't even notice it until >people started screaming and yelling about it. I didn't want to get involved in this discussion. (I think the whole thing is pretty trivial. A common thread in 99% of non- language oriented humor is that it makes fun of someone or something's difficulties - including personal differences.) However, the statement by this system administrator is particularly bad. He says that because he doesn't notice it it either doesn't exist or is so subtle that no one else should get upset. This is not a particularly realistic idea. Although I am in no way calling Roy a bigot, it seems to me that no bigot would consider his actions bigoted. "The Jews/blacks/<etc> are getting what they deserve; that's nothing special...." Please think about this. Not recognizing a problem is not necessarily due to nonexistence of the problem. It can also be due to lack of sensitivity on the part of the observer. >Roy Smith, System Administrator >Public Health Research Institute >{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net >"The connector is the network" -- Sam Saal ..!attunix!saal Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
paw3c@galen.acc.virginia.edu (Pat Wilson) (11/30/88)
In article <1752YZKCU@CUNYVM>, YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > > I normally try very hard to avoid profanity, sometimes with more success > than at other times, but "F___ OFF YOU JEWISH B____" is anything but a > joke, and deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms by responsible > adults, who have a moral obligation to discourage deliberately offensive > behavior. > > Humor that is deliberately offensive tends to bring out the worst in > people. > > Do we not now see that? Sigh. You must be new to the net, or have never posted anything controversial. I'm sorry for Nancy that she got some nasty e-mail, but it's no worse than anything else I've seen. The fact that the adjective "jewish" is in there is really not a big deal. Usenet, as has been pointed out again and again, is a public forum. Our particular way of communicating has a lot of drawbacks, not the least of which is that typing at your keyboard is _very_ distancing - people often find themselves "saying" things in anger that they wouldn't in a face-to-face (or even voice-to-voice) conversation. There's also the problem that it's incredibly easy to send mail to a poster, and mail (unlike news) can't be recalled. If you're concerned about harrassing e-mail, or harrassing postings, the first thing to do is to contact the poster. The second place to go is the poster's system administrator. Spaf and Erik probably can't do anything about it anyway. -- Pat Wilson paw3c@acc.virginia.edu || uunet!virginia!paw3c || paw3c@virginia.BITNET
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (12/01/88)
In article <577@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes: >Can it be done? Perhaps. Should it be done? Never. >The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution. The Constitution does not protect your right to express the view that the President should be assassinated. In estabishing Justice, insuring domestic Tranquility, and promoting the *general* welfare, the Constitution CANNOT guarantee absolute protection to anything that would interfere with those goals. Americans come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, religions, and other categories. We cannot secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity unless we recognize that the Constitution cannot protect racism, bigotry, hatred and divisiveness in an absolute manner. Expressing a view is protected. I could say, with Constitution protection, that I think all <pick group> are <pick epithet>. But when I direct a written or verbal attack at a specific person, that is *not* a view that I am expressing, it is an attack against an American citizen, and it does not promote domestic tranquility or the general welfare. For political purposes, some have suggested that participation in Usenet makes one a public figure. It is permissible to make verbal attacks, to a certain extent, on public figures, for political purposes. But merely participating in a Usenet discussion does not give anyone political power, any more than participating in a New England town meeting or a Quaker meeting does. In a democracy, we have to protect free speech and further the participation of the electorate in the political process, by permitting people to discuss issues in a public forum without them automatically becoming public figures as they would be were they elected to an office or published in a highly paid and widely read periodical. >Mr. Kayman, your urging of censorship is just as abhorrent as any >expression of racism. Please reconsider: accept your responsibilities >to this great country along with your freedoms in it. There will be >things said that you don't want to hear. You in turn will say things >that others don't want to hear. Let's all respect one another and >merely turn away when we don't like what's being said. What we don't want to hear *is* censorship. When somebody tries to silence others, particularly for discriminatory reasons, *THAT* is censorship. Directing hate mail attacks at people can intimidate them and cause them to leave the discussion. If you don't like what I say, respond to the issues. If, instead, you sent me hate mail telling me to shut up and calling me obscene names, it will be obvious to everyone that you are a bigot, cannot argue in a reasonable or logical fashion, and are attempting to stifle discussion and censor another person by means of ad hominem attacks. That is directly opposed to the purposes of Usenet. If you oppose the medium, leave it. If you attempt to destroy it, don't be too surprised if you are relieved of your access. Destroying discussions is no different from destroying the machines that carry them, and is not likely to be tolerated by those who have worked hard to permit this system to exist. >I think you should show your colors, Mr. Kayman. Are you in fact >asking for censorship? Your posting can certainly be read that way. Mr. Kayman asked for a remedy for censorship. An attempt was made to silence a Usenet participant by directing obscene hate mail at them. But a recent incident might also shed some light on the definition of censorship. When a proposed tv program depicted violence against a bisexual who was knowingly transmitting AIDS, a group called ACTUP disrupted filming and forced the producer to change the script. The rationale given for this was that only the government is prevented by the Constitution from censoring public expression, and ACTUP is *NOT* the government. Neither is Mr. Kayman. >I deplore vicious personal attacks and hate mail. I strongly deplore >racism of all forms. Even more strongly, I love our freedoms under the >Constitution. I'm so glad you "deplore" everything horrible. So are the bigots. So long as our government "deplores" Apartheid, the bigots can continue to profit from it. Were our government to OPPOSE Apartheid, the exploitation and subjugation of human beings on the basis of race, might become less profitable. >The senders of electronic hate mail should be treated the same way the >senders of poison pen letters and the makers of harassing telephone >calls are treated. When they break specific laws, they should be >prosecuted. Punishment of specific offenses, not broad censorship, is >the answer. Senders of poison pen letters and makers of harassing phone calls can be sent to jail. It is more difficult to prove an electronic communication was sent by a particular individual and not forged, so I know of no case where someone who sent hate mail has been imprisoned. It is interesting that you favor criminal prosecution of anyone sending hate mail, but won't you consider a lesser remedy? If we had a mandatory death penalty for rapists, it would be even more difficult to get convictions. In the interests of furthering the existence of Usenet, might you consider some lesser penalty for the many bigots who sent hate mail to Usenet participants? I would favor a warning the first time, a suspension of access the second time, and revocation of privileges if there is a third offense. That means that all sites would have to agree to this, in order to be able to carry the net, but without some form of discipline we will continue to have a skewed participation since many women and people of color have been frightened away or made to feel unwelcome by hate mail from bigots, and current participation does not reflect the actual percentage of women and minorities with access at most large corporate, government, and university sites. We should act to remedy this situation so that someday some federal agency does not step in and remedy it for us. >Racism cannot, alas, be legislated away. Neither can it be shouted, >nor even bullied away. Teach your children well, set a good example, >and hope for the best. Morality cannot be legislated. Racism can and must be. The only way we abolished slavery was through law. The only way we managed to integrate schools was through law. You seem to feel that the shouting and bullying that intimidates women and people of color from participating in Usenet is Constitutionally protected, but you don't want the oppressed to use similar means to defend themselves. Unless the response is protected to the same extent as the attack, you do NOT have freedom of speech, nor can you have balanced discussions. Labelling Mr. Kayman's response to the attack on Nancy Gould, "censorship," and advocating criminal prosecution instead, does not seem to be a constructive solution. You can't just hope that hatred will go away. Many people in Germany tried that and it didn't work. Why not look around you, Mr. Harper, and ask yourself why there isn't more female participation on Usenet. Then ask yourself if you would want your daughters, if you had any, to post if they would be subjected to hate mail when they did. Stop wishing and hoping and deploring, or insisting on only the most extreme and severe remedies, and try to seek a reasonable solution to a very real problem that is impeding free and open discussion on Usenet. --Mark
shane@chablis.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) (12/01/88)
In article <1752YZKCU@CUNYVM> YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: [ Deleted for brevity. I want respond to the response to the response which was a reaction to some mail which was produced through the flame wars brought about as a response to some responses caused by a posting in rec.humor.funny. ] >I'd like to make it *quite* clear that the Jew-hatred on the net that I >refer to is *NOT* the original Jewish-Scottish joke (see r.h.f. if you >must if you don't remember that one, or e-mail Brad Templeton), but >rather the vile anti-Semitic profanity directed at Nancy Gould as a >result of this "tempest in a teapot". The original joke was offensive, >but not terribly so. The specific instance you are talking about is the result of the joke in r.h.f. I have seen claims (nearing the hundreds now), that that joke is an attack on the entire Jewish religion. (Many of these people claim that Jews are a race, which is false. There is a Jewish culture, but it is not a race trait. It is based upon a set of religious beliefs.) >I normally try very hard to avoid profanity, sometimes with more success >than at other times, but "F___ OFF YOU JEWISH B____" is anything but a >joke, and deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms by responsible >adults, who have a moral obligation to discourage deliberately offensive >behavior. > I agree with you that this is offensive. However, I feel that most of the heat is being directed incorrectly. Let me try to explain. The phrase "Fuck Off" is basically a null phrase. If you are on Usenet and haven't been told to "fuck off" yet, you are doing something wrong. :-) Seriously, this is not the major concern here. The phrase Jewish Bitch is what is taking all the heat. I maintain that it is the work Bitch which should be causing most of the heat. The adjective "Jewish" is being used as a pejoritive because most of the flaming has be of the type "I'm Jewish and I'm offended." If the person involved had been Scottish, would the phrase "Fuck Off you Scottish Bitch", have been as offensive? I think not. Yet the content is the same. >Humor that is deliberately offensive tends to bring out the worst in >people. >Do we not now see that? No, I don't agree with that at all. Your premise is that the humor in question (the joke in r.h.f) caused the hate mail. The hate mail was caused by something said by Nancy, possibly. If the joke had passed without the major yelling and flaming which has occured, would the mail have been sent? The answer is pretty clearly NO. The conclusion is therefore false. I will now start a slight flame directed against this situation, not at anybody in particular. I am sick and tired of having a list of "minority" groups which demand the "right" to be treated specialially and have to be handled with kid gloves. Speaking personally, there are several major groups on out campus here which receive prefered treatment because they are "minorities". Groups such as blacks and Jews are two that come to mind. Here if you refer to anybody (or group) descended from "Afro-American" ancestry you refer to them a Black with a capital B. Yet whites don't get the capital. Here, Jews are allowed to skip classes on Jewish religious holidays. This is fine, but non-Jewish groups do not get the same privledges. They have to attend classes, etc, even if it is a religious day for them. I am tired of having to mollycoddle minorities! I want to be able to treat people as people and humans. Not as a member of some group! >-------- >Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York Shane Looker | Looker@um.cc.umich.edu America works less, when you say "Union Yes!"
booter@pyrnova (Elaine Richards) (12/01/88)
My two cents. I saw the two notes. They were offensive and peurile. Such mailings to individuals cannot be prevented or governed. If you get a system administrator (who has such authority) to toss a yahoo off a system, another will come by. The original offender who was tossed will find another UNIX box to be a jerk on. Most of the time, the more inflammatory individuals get bored, graduate or grow up. I guarantee that this same person who called Nancy a "Jewish bitch" would call someone else a "WASP bitch" or a "drunken Irishman". The best tactic is to write this person off. Do not reply to these mailings. If they persist, then contact the sysadmin there. If they fill the net with flamage, then we will collectively pounce on the hooligan. There is a fear that the Neo-Nazis and various anti(insert ethnicity here) groups will expand in numbers. This is valid. Alas, the usenet is not going to rise in a body and smash anti-semitism by censoring mail and netnews. If anything, we need to know who these people are and keep an eye on them. I also do not think that they are bright enough to turn the net into a very effective soapbox for their verbal graffiti. ER (Standard disclaimer about my Company,opinion, my Irish ancestors and my WASP father)
news@linus.UUCP (USENET NEWS) (12/01/88)
References <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> <3616@phri.UUCP> <1752YZKCU@CUNYVM> <812@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>: Sender: Reply-To: rzahavi@gateway.mitre.org (Ron Zahavi) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: The Mitre Corporation Keywords: From: rzahavi@gateway.mitre.org (Ron Zahavi) Path: gateway.mitre.org!rzahavi In article <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> <3616@phri.UUCP> <1752YZKCU@CUNYVM> <812@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> (Shane Looker) writes: . . . > If the person involved had been Scottish, would the phrase "Fuck Off you > Scottish Bitch", have been as offensive? I think not. Yet the content is > the same. . . . > I am tired of having to mollycoddle minorities! I want to be able to treat > people as people and humans. Not as a member of some group! I hope that there are others out there that see the sad state of affairs here. What has happened to us (as a human race)? Have we come to the point that the above statement really would be offensive only to some groups and not others? To me, the above statement should be offensive no matter at whom its directed. Such language should not be acceptable anywhere, and especially on the net. If you really want to treat all people as human beings you should start by treating them the same, your comments above are contradictory. Also, while I agree that reverse discrimination is bad, you (and I mean anyone out there) should be careful. When you start complaining about why some groups may get special treatment you tread closely to the reason those special treatments were placed there in the first place - discrimination. I truly wish they didn't have to be there, however, due to the world we live in they are there for a reason. Finally, I would like to elaborate on my statement above about the reason certain rules should be followed on the net. While I don't particularly favor censorship, I do favor stopping those who abuse their privileges. Most of us have access to the net because of a government agency, institution, university, etc. Most people are not directly paying for their privileges. Thus, even though you can place disclaimers in your messages you may still be affecting the reputation of the institution. Furthermore, I was once involved with a case at the University of Maryland and the state of Maryland concerning hate material. The case involved a campus organization which used student association and state money to sponsor an organization which spoke on the destruction of the American Government, armed forces and democracy, WHICH HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAT ALLOWS IT TO SPEAK. The simple point which was made is this: while you have the right to speak freely, do it with your own money! The state should not fund directly, or indirectly those who wish to destroy it, it's absurd. Indeed, the group spoke on campus, but it had to pay for the room, posters, etc. The fact that there is freedom of speech should not allow people to abuse privileges given to them and spread hate and bigotry on the net. We can start by having the respective organizations revoke the privileges of those who misuse them. -- Ron -- Disclaimer: The above are my own views, etc. ============================================================================== Ron Zahavi (703) 883-5637 Mitre Corporation rzahavi@gateway.mitre.org 7525 Colshire Drive McLean, VA 22102 ==============================================================================
rick@vsi1.UUCP (Rick Schneider) (12/02/88)
From article <812@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>, by shane@chablis.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker): > If the person involved had been Scottish, would the phrase "Fuck Off you > Scottish Bitch", have been as offensive? I think not. Yet the content is > the same. Yes the phrase would be just as offensive to a woman who was of Scottish ancestry. Substitute any nationality and the phrase still remains a "racist" slur. > Here, Jews are allowed to skip classes on Jewish religious holidays. This is > fine, but non-Jewish groups do not get the same privledges. They have to > attend classes, etc, even if it is a religious day for them. I don't know what university you attend, but if you are *forced* to attend classes on a day that is "holy" to you, then you have a major lawsuit against your university. You better check the policy of your university a little more carefully before making such a claim. You will find that if you are a Christian, and you have a conviction not to attend classes on Good Friday you do not have to attend. However, do you find someone stating to you: "Fuck off you racist bitch" offensive? If you don't you should!! -- Rick Schneider rick@vsi1.com -or- ...{ ames | apple | sun }!vsi1!rick VICOM SYSTEMS, INC. 2520 Junction Avenue, San Jose, Ca, 95134,(408)432-8660 The opinions expressed are not those of my employer or are they?
rjb@akgua.ATT.COM (Bob Brown) (12/02/88)
In article <17569@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > > Morality cannot be legislated. Racism can and must be. The only > way we abolished slavery was through law. The only way we managed > to integrate schools was through law. You seem to feel that the > shouting and bullying that intimidates women and people of color > from participating in Usenet is Constitutionally protected, but you > don't want the oppressed to use similar means to defend themselves. > Unless the response is protected to the same extent as the attack, > you do NOT have freedom of speech, nor can you have balanced > discussions. > > --Mark I like to whack this canard every time I see it...... Every law that affects interpersonal behavior (and perhaps every law period) is the legislation of some collective or individual morality. You cannot legislate against Racism (a belief or attitude) but the effects of that attitude as worked out in behavior. You cannot, in short, pass a law to make me like you...but you can, as you have noted, pass a law to keep me from enslaving folks. However, you would be hard pressed to argue that there was no moral imperative behind your anti-slavery law. You decided, based on some value system, that slavery was not acceptable and in our kind of governmental system you convinced a required number of folks about your position. To rephrase your first sentence "You can't legislate attitudes...they develop from the inside out."
leo@hropus.UUCP (Leonard Oppenheimer) (12/02/88)
This is not really a followup to the above article, it is instead the posting to this newsgroup an article that appears today in talk.politics.mideast. I consider this article a far greater example of jew-hatred than the cheap vulgarisms directed at Nancy Gould. Article posted below: >From tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) Thu Dec 1 02:46:02 1988 >Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hropus.UUCP >Path: hropus!homxb!whuts!att!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick >From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) >Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast >Subject: Re: 29th of November >Message-ID: <26993@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> >Date: Thu, 1-Dec-88 02:46:02 EST >Article-I.D.: ucbvax.26993 >Posted: Thu Dec 1 02:46:02 1988 >Date-Received: Thu, 1-Dec-88 08:00:28 EST >Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU >Lines: 16 > >->Not to be too cynical here, I'd suggest that there is only one ->explanation to this protest: they oppose the very existence of >->the state of Israel ... > >What a brilliant deduction. After the Muslims have been struggling >for more than a thousand years to drive out the infidels, the Israelis >begin to suspect that maybe they aren't wanted. No wonder Hitler was >able to kill 6 million Jews. How blind can anyone be? I suppose they >thought "Mein Kampf" was a joke, and the death trains were taking >them to new homelands in the east. > >"Not to be too cynical ..." What does it take to wake you people up >to the brutal reality you face? Have you forgotten your history? Your >enemies would like nothing better than to kill or enslave every last >one of you (including the "enlightened" leftists. Your "correct" >political thinking won't save you ...) > Leonard Oppenheimer att!opus!leo
fr@icdi10.uucp (Fred Rump from home) (12/02/88)
In article <812@mailrus.cc.umich.edu>, shane@chablis.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) writes: } In article <1752YZKCU@CUNYVM} YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: } } If the person involved had been Scottish, would the phrase "Fuck Off you } Scottish Bitch", have been as offensive? I think not. Yet the content is } the same. } } I am sick and tired of having a list of "minority" groups which demand the } "right" to be treated specialially and have to be handled with kid gloves. } } I am tired of having to mollycoddle minorities! I want to be able to treat } people as people and humans. Not as a member of some group! } } Shane Looker | Looker@um.cc.umich.edu } America works less, when you say "Union Yes!" I would suspect that you'll get jumped on rather heavily for not taken into consideration the millenia and all that. But I'm fully in agreement with your last statement. I think respect has to be earned as a human not as some group member. A persons labels should be an insignificant incidental aspect of his (now I'll get flamed for the male pronoun) humanity. Fred Rump -- {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!cdis-1!cdin-1!icdi10!fr 26 Warren St. or ...{bellcore,rutgers,cbmvax}!bpa!cdin-1!icdi10!fr Beverly, NJ 08010 or...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!cdis-1!cdin-1!icdi10!fr 609-386-6846 "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..." - Schiller
mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist) (12/02/88)
In article <577@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes: >that others don't want to hear. Let's all respect one another and >merely turn away when we don't like what's being said. Oh yeah, the very _essence_ of Democracy |-} |-} |-} Let's not "merely turn away".
waters@dover.uucp (Mike Waters) (12/02/88)
In article <812@mailrus.cc.umich.edu> shane@chablis.cc.umich.edu (Shane Looker) writes: > [ Deleted for brevity. I want respond to the response to the response ... and I to that response and so on ad infinitum ... ] >Speaking personally, there are several major groups on out campus here which >receive prefered treatment because they are "minorities". Groups such as >blacks and Jews are two that come to mind. Or could it be that they need "preferred" treatment only to get the same actual tratment in practice as everyone else gets? > >Here, Jews are allowed to skip classes on Jewish religious holidays. This is >fine, but non-Jewish groups do not get the same privledges. They have to >attend classes, etc, even if it is a religious day for them. I for one will NOT be working either this "Lords Day" nor on the anniversary of my Christian Savior's birth (Dec. 25). Will you also be taking advantage of this "special treatment"? In Arizona (and I am sure in Utah) we observe LDS (Mormon) holidays too, simply because there are enough Mormons here to demand it. Try holding a school meeting on "family home night" for example. -- Mike Waters (for your EDIFication) * Motorola CAD Group * Witty remark goes *HERE* Mesa, AZ ...!sun!sunburn!dover!waters * OR moto@cad.Berkley.EDU *
mak@ndc.UUCP (Mike Klaus) (12/02/88)
There WAS a scheduled flood of anti-semitism to be released by the nasty ole bavarians :*). Good thing THAT didn't materialize. mak
Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich) (12/03/88)
In article <401@hropus.UUCP>, leo@hropus (Leonard Oppenheimer) writes: >This is not really a followup to the above article, it is >instead the posting to this newsgroup an article that >appears today in talk.politics.mideast. I consider this >article a far greater example of jew-hatred than the cheap >vulgarisms directed at Nancy Gould. He's referring to the post: >>From tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) Thu Dec 1 02:46:02 1988 >>Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast >>Subject: Re: 29th of November >> >>->Not to be too cynical here, I'd suggest that there is only one >->explanation to this protest: they oppose the very existence of >>->the state of Israel ... >> >>What a brilliant deduction. After the Muslims have been struggling >>for more than a thousand years to drive out the infidels, the Israelis >>begin to suspect that maybe they aren't wanted. No wonder Hitler was >>able to kill 6 million Jews. How blind can anyone be? I suppose they >>thought "Mein Kampf" was a joke, and the death trains were taking >>them to new homelands in the east. >> >>"Not to be too cynical ..." What does it take to wake you people up >>to the brutal reality you face? Have you forgotten your history? Your >>enemies would like nothing better than to kill or enslave every last >>one of you (including the "enlightened" leftists. Your "correct" >>political thinking won't save you ...) This is a very interesting post, because I think I agree with everything that Mr. Tedrick says. I certainly don't like it (and I have no reason to think that Mr. Tedrick does), but I think that it's true. Was he anti-semetic to say it?? Depends on his intent. I really don't see any reason to think so. Bruce Krulwich
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/03/88)
For the record, there was nothing anti-Jewish in any article I posted. I'm not anti-Jewish in any way. Without going into personal matters, I can assure you that's the most absurd thing you could think :-) Strange that when you point out what serious danger the Israelis are in from the Islamic world, your views get misinterpreted 100%. Doubly strange, since I usually get flamed for being pro-Israeli and anti-Palestinian. I guess many net people still don't know how to read and understand what other people have written.
harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) (12/04/88)
References: <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> <577@oravax.UUCP> <44387@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> In article <44387@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) writes: >In article <577@oravax.UUCP>, harper@oravax (Doug Harper) writes: [Earlier discussion of censorship elided.] >>Can it be done? Perhaps. Should it be done? Never. >>The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution. > >May I ask the esteemed gentleman in what Article or Amendment to our >Constitution it is written that a man has the right to unlimited >access and expression on the net? I believe that Mr. Engleson has misunderstood me. I'm not saying that everyone has an absolute right to access to the net, just that access may not be denied or revoked on the basis of what the individual says on the net. My position is that the net (though not every participating site) is publicly funded (through state universities and the Department of Defense), and is therefore a free-speech forum. This convinces me that not even a private site may revoke an account for the purpose of silencing a user. > To pursue `reductio ad absurdum', >do I then have the right to demand my right of free expression on the >local television station to foment rebellion against the government of >these United States? There seem to be two questions here. First, there is the question of his demanding to use a private resource in order to speak. Second, there is the question of fomenting rebellion. If Mr. Engleson demanded to speak in my house or my ice cream parlor (if I had one), I could legitimately refuse him. If I owned a television station, though, I'd be using a public resource, the "airwaves", under license, and would not have an absolute right of refusal. But if I am correct about the net's being a free-speech forum whose operating costs are publicly defrayed, both of these would seem to be beside the point. Could someone who is expert in communications law speak to this? I stand corrected on the second question. I spoke too strongly: the Constitution does not protect the expression of all views, but in the Schenk case in 1919, the Supreme Court ruled that only "clear and present danger" justifies the limitation of free speech. Under the Smith Act of 1940 there is no right to foment rebellion against the government. To the best of my knowledge, this is the law of the land, but again, this would be better addressed by an expert. [Quotes from earlier postings about the verbal attacks on Nancy M.] [Gould deleted.] >Prosecution was not called for, my dear sir. What was called for was >that this incident be brought to the attention of the bigot's >sysadmin, for him to deal with in an appropriate manner. It was not >suggested that the man be thrown in jail. I have to disagree: those actions are *not* appropriate. What is appropriate is for Ms. Gould to file criminal charges. I would like to suggest that she set up a fund for her legal expenses. I would be glad to contribute, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. It may be difficult to discover who (do we know it's a male?) is reponsible. Not being a net.wizard, I don't know how difficult this is. I do know that there are a lot of clever, decent people out there who ought to be able to help find out who the culprit(s) is(are), if these outrages continue. I sympathise with Ms. Gould for the pain she has felt, and would like to offer this as comfort. You have nothing beyond name-calling to fear from wannabee Fascists who don't even have the courage to give out their names. -- Douglas Harper (speaking only for myself) Odyssey Research Associates | oravax!harper@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu ARPA 301A Harris B. Dates Drive | {allegra,rochester}!cornell!oravax!harper UUCP Ithaca, NY 14850-3051 | (607) 277-2020 extension 276
engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) (12/04/88)
In article <586@oravax.UUCP>, harper@oravax (Doug Harper) writes: >References: <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> <577@oravax.UUCP> <44387@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> > >In article <44387@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) writes: > >>In article <577@oravax.UUCP>, harper@oravax (Doug Harper) writes: > >[Earlier discussion of censorship elided.] > >>>Can it be done? Perhaps. Should it be done? Never. >>>The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution. >> >>May I ask the esteemed gentleman in what Article or Amendment to our >>Constitution it is written that a man has the right to unlimited >>access and expression on the net? > >I believe that Mr. Engleson has misunderstood me. I believe that Mr. Harper has misspelled my name. >I'm not saying that >everyone has an absolute right to access to the net, just that access >may not be denied or revoked on the basis of what the individual says >on the net. My position is that the net (though not every >participating site) is publicly funded (through state universities and >the Department of Defense), and is therefore a free-speech forum. This >convinces me that not even a private site may revoke an account for the >purpose of silencing a user. If I own a computer, and give an account to someone for some reason, you are now saying that I cannot revoke that account whenever I choose? Net access is a priviledge, not a right, sir. >> To pursue `reductio ad absurdum', >>do I then have the right to demand my right of free expression on the >>local television station to foment rebellion against the government of >>these United States? > >There seem to be two questions here. First, there is the question of >his demanding to use a private resource in order to speak. Second, >there is the question of fomenting rebellion. True. >If Mr. Engleson demanded to speak in my house or my ice cream parlor >(if I had one), I could legitimately refuse him. If I owned a >television station, though, I'd be using a public resource, the >"airwaves", under license, and would not have an absolute right of >refusal. But if I am correct about the net's being a free-speech forum >whose operating costs are publicly defrayed, both of these would seem >to be beside the point. Could someone who is expert in communications >law speak to this? First, I believe that under law if I own a private TV station, I can refuse access to whomever I want (unless it falls under such special cases as 'equal candidate airtime', etc). Secondly, you should note that net access is paid for by the various sites on the net, rather than publicly. And thus, I would think that any site can legitimately refuse access to its resources to pass along messages it didn't want to pass along. >I stand corrected on the second question. I spoke too strongly: the >Constitution does not protect the expression of all views, but in the >Schenk case in 1919, the Supreme Court ruled that only "clear and >present danger" justifies the limitation of free speech. Under the >Smith Act of 1940 there is no right to foment rebellion against the >government. To the best of my knowledge, this is the law of the land, >but again, this would be better addressed by an expert. Thank you. [ elision note elided ] >>Prosecution was not called for, my dear sir. What was called for was >>that this incident be brought to the attention of the bigot's >>sysadmin, for him to deal with in an appropriate manner. It was not >>suggested that the man be thrown in jail. > >I have to disagree: those actions are *not* appropriate. What is >appropriate is for Ms. Gould to file criminal charges. I would like >to suggest that she set up a fund for her legal expenses. I would be >glad to contribute, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. I as well would, but I sadly believe that it would probably get nowhere in this radically individualised country. This case would follow many precedents, I believe, in reaffirming the right to free speech, no matter how distasteful, etc. etc. Individualism, as opposed to sheep-ism is to be applauded. As opposed to a sense of community and a true consideration of the effects one's acts have on others, it is reprehensible. -Sean- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Yale Department of Computer Science 51 Prospect St. New Haven, CT 06520 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G-d, according to Einstein, does not play dice with the world. Well, maybe; but He sure is into shell games. --Jerry Fodor in "Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres"
bcn@june.cs.washington.edu (Clifford Neuman) (12/05/88)
This whole question does not concern the free speech issue. If the message we were debating concerned a racist or similar attack on a minority in general, then one of the issues would be free speech. If, however, someone starts saying things about an INDIVIDUAL in a public forum, then the issue is one of libel or slander. If the attacks are in private messages to the individual, then the issue is one of harrassment. Universities and businesses have policies regarding harrassment (whether sexual, racist, or based on other factors). I see no reason why this incident should be treated any differently. ~ Cliff
" Maynard) (12/05/88)
In article <17569@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes one of Mark's typical tirades, full of ranting and raving, but bearing little resemblence to reality. I'll respond to just one point here, as 1) I'm somewhat familiar with the particular case, and 2) others will no doubt shred the rest of the tirade: >The Constitution does not protect your right to express the view >that the President should be assassinated. Actually, in a case decided by the Supreme Court about a year and a half ago, the right to do exactly that was upheld. An employee of one of Harris County's Constable offices was fired for making the statement that "I wish Hinkley would have done the job right" at work, in front of the entire office. She was fired on the basis that an employee of a law-enforcement agency should not condone or encourage illegal activity. She sued for reinstatement, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which ordered her rehired and given back pay. The ruling stated that the firing infringed the employee's First Amendment right to free expression. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can uucp: uunet!nuchat! (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- {killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Eight more years! Eight more years!
leo@hropus.UUCP (Leonard Oppenheimer) (12/06/88)
Referring to my earlier posting of Mr. Tedrick`s article: The way I read this article originally, it seemed to me to be the work of a non-jew telling us "You got what you deserved by Hitler, and you should again!" It seems that I was wrong, and I am sincerely and deeply sorry if I misread you. That happens sometimes with highly sarcastic articles. Regretfully, Leonard Oppenheimer
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (12/06/88)
In article <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > What do you people "out there" think? It is now worse than the hate mail many receive on the net of the "____ OFF YOU STUPID _______" type. The inclusion of the word "JEW" makes little difference to its significance. These people are entitled to their opinion and are entitled to let you know their opinions. Their ignorance and intolerance is no excuse for ignorance and intolerance on our part. Unless there is evidence of consiracy or going beyond these simplistic outbursts, cool it. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!philabs!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (12/06/88)
In article <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > What do you people "out there" think? It is no worse than the idiot mail many on the net receive of the "____ OFF YOU STUPID _______" type. The inclusion of the word "Jew" makes little difference to its significance. These people are entitled to their opinions and are entitled to let you know their opinions, unless they do so to a degree that creates harrassment. Their ignorance and intolerance is no excuse for ignorance and intolerance on our part. Unless there is evidence of consiracy or of anyone going beyond these purile outbursts, cool it. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!philabs!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (12/06/88)
In article <1752YZKCU@CUNYVM> YZKCU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes: > >Humor that is deliberately offensive tends to bring out the worst in >people. > >Do we not now see that? No, overreacting to a joke which was fairly innocuous, even if in "poor taste", tends to make other people overreact similarly. The posting of the joke was dubious. The (over)reaction was at least just as dubious. Do we not now see that? By the way, the case has now hit the press. The Montreal Gazette on Saturday reported the case along with an interview with Templeton etc, and to say that the U of Waterloo is "looking into it". This came from the Canadian Press news agency. I wont repeat the article here as I'm sure you'll read it elsewhere. Suffice it to say that the internet worm is causing general exposure so that what wouldn't be news under normal circumstances is currently hot. It looks as if that "affirmative action" is having some effect. Why is it that in conflicts like these, a demand for "manners" and "tolerance" from the *other* side is rarely accompanied by a *demonstration* of those same virtues. -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!philabs!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
eric@hdr.UUCP (Eric J. Johnson) (12/07/88)
In article <1442@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >The posting of the joke was dubious. The (over)reaction was at least just >as dubious. The wicked are never more than men who are either drunk or mad; if they reason, it is not until tranquility is re-established in their machine; then, and not till then, the tardy ideas that present themselves to their mind enable them to see the consequence of their actions, and give birth to ideas that bring on them that trouble, which is designated SHAME, REGRET, REMORSE. BARON d'HOLBACH [From The System of Nature, chapter 11. Translated by H.D. Robinson (1868). First published in 1770.] -- Eric J. Johnson, Amperif Corporation. UUCP: eric@hdr.UUCP Perhaps, once upon a time, some Devilish hacker planted a bomb deep in the human brain such that it would only trigger upon a certain thought passing through the mind... Perhaps this explains spontaneous human combu*****