max@zion.Berkeley.EDU (Max Hauser) (11/23/87)
[A version of this was posted much earlier to news.admin but did not make it out. I wish that I could blame dark forces of censorship for that, which would be satisfying, and would free me of responsibility; but I know better and must acknowledge the more banal probability of bad software or my own error.] Preamble: I know nothing whatever about Eric Mading (Madding?) or his postings, and therefore entertain no agenda, explicit or secret, concerning them. This article is a reaction to the other articles appearing on news.admin, concerning Mading's postings and alleged loss of account at his site, and aspects of the Usenet community illuminated thereby. Quotations from other articles are indented with >, in the usual manner. These reaction articles make great reading as a case study in the state-of-the-Usenet. > Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the > same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone, > or hanging around outside their house. You do not HAVE TO read the > net. You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you. What a neat idea. This means that I can make up offensive lies about the person who suggested this; post them carefully to guarantee that the subject does not see them; and escape any accountability for it. In fact, of course, Usenet posters are bound not only by ordinary and usual standards of civility and by libel codes but also by federal criminal statutes (from the potential of fraud-by-wire and the interstate nature of much of the Usenet traffic), whether or not they are aware of it. Some, indeed, make almost a hobby of being unaware of it. I for one would relish seeing offending Usenet posters called to account if they run afoul of these external strictures, not at all for revenge, but because it would represent a clarifying intrusion of objective reality into painstakingly-nurtured misconceptions of how the Usenet (shall I say even the world?) works. Regrettably, such legal reality sometimes (as the late Martin Luther King put it) "must be imposed from without." > As a news administrator I take no responsibility whatsoever for > what users at my site post. I will refrain from posting more uninformed speculations about this, and thereby adding even further to the noise on the subject, except to point out that whether an administrator actually bears some legal responsibility for user postings is not, of course, completely up to the administrator, regardless of what he or she may claim. The mind reels at certain statements -- wrote Susan Griffin in an essay once -- giving (as I recall) the example "If you've seen one tree, you've seen them all," attributed to Ronald Reagan. One scarcely knows how to begin to reply, so wide is the gap of sensibilities or background that such a statement reveals. Thus too on the Usenet: > Are there set policies when and why to pull somebody's account? -- as though there were "policies" of any kind concerning accounts across the thousands of independent machines that happen to have access to the Usenet; that this were even a meaningful concept, let alone feasible or desirable. > There might be a good case here for writing up a "nettiquette re > assasination" document for system administrators, and placing a > reference to it in the normal net ettiquete material. -- as though it were any business at all of people at other sites that happen to have Usenet access, let alone of netiquette documents, to tell administrators of computers at distant institutions how to run their accounts; to presume to know better than they do what constitutes sufficient basis for removing one. Incidentally, we are beginning to see mention of the "right" to Usenet access, just as I have heard talk of the "right" to a college education, and the "right" to a driver's license (and seriously, mind; not even for irony). That such idioms are used at all reflects the state of thinking one can find without effort on the Usenet (and elsewhere). I have yet to see reference to the "right" to (say) a vacation home in the country, with fully stocked larder and hot tub; that may be too obvious even for those who speak of a "right" to Usenet access. > Perhaps, if Eric makes it back to the net, > he will have learned that a little moderation goes a long way. No, if this case follows the examples of other people thrown off of their machines for abject obnoxiousness, he will instead return to the net with a vengeance, vowing bitterly to remain forever, through other names and (bless them) public-access sites if necessary. He will blame everyone and accuse anyone, but never even glimpse, let alone acknowledge, the burden of personal responsibility (and hence, incidentally, power) he bears for his own situation. He may even go as far as to holler conspiracy if his net-access software fails or his modem connection drops off, something most of us cannot (unfortunately) do, lacking either the exaggerated self-importance or the technical naivete that are both prerequisite. I suspect however that Mading is also too sophisticated to indulge in those games. Keeping again, hypothetically, to the standard scenario, a gaggle of defenders -- a fan club, if you will -- can be counted upon to arise, no matter how heinous the offender's behavior. The more hidebound of those (who will certainly regard themselves, on the contrary, as the most broad-minded) will even try to make it out as some kind of symmetrical dispute in which the offender just happened to be the losing party. They may even present him as the victim, falsely imputing all kinds of dark motives to his detractors (themselves the original and actual victims); posting distorted histories of the case (to the silent disgust of long-term observers who have watched the whole thing); and even going so far as to call for external legal action against the victims (rather than the perpetrator). God knows we have been through it all before. Max Hauser / max@eros.berkeley.edu / ...{!decvax}!ucbvax!eros!max Positions herein are those of the author alone.
oz@yetti.UUCP (11/27/87)
In article <21908@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> max@eros.UUCP (Max Hauser) writes: > >These reaction articles make great reading as a case study in the >state-of-the-Usenet. > We are busily printing 'em, for followup papers we are working on. [See the prev. announcement about an upcoming posting.] > >In fact, of course, Usenet posters are bound not only by ordinary >and usual standards of civility and by libel codes but also by federal >criminal statutes ... This is a very important point I think. A libel suit against an individual, a site, or against entire USENET because of a posting is not unthinkable. Perhaps netiquette should be expanded to include laws governing libel and misuse of mass-media. This reminds one of growing pains... oz -- You see things, and you say "WHY?" Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz But I dream things that never were; ......!seismo!mnetor!yetti!oz and say "WHY NOT?" Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] [Back To Methuselah] Bernard Shaw Phonet: [416] 736-5257 x 3976