COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) (11/13/87)
I think anyone who's been reading this group for any length of time knows
that while Eric was on the net I was one of his more vocal opponents. However,
I cannot condone the removal of his accounts because of his postings.
I think that Eric DESERVED to have his accounts removed, but I do not think
that we had the right to cause them to be removed.
The reason I am opposed to this action is not because it is censorship.
The term "censorship" is irrelevant on the net; the net is pretty much a
privately funded institution; those who control the net control what is
allowed on the net. However, I noticed that the shutup of Eric Mading was
very quiet. We would not even have heard about it if the person responsible
for his removal did not post this to the net. Generally, the alt newsgroups
are known for the freedom of speech in them. I think that if Eric can be
removed for what he says, many of us are also so endangered.
For example, if someone were to forward Russell Turpin's article on "The
despicability of drug cops" to his sysadmin, this sysadmin might find it
offensive and have his account removed. It does certainly SEEM to advocate
cop-killing. I know that it does not in fact condone any such thing, but
preceded by a convincing enough cover letter, this could be portrayed to his
detriment. In fact, many of the articles people have written about
Eric could be construed as offensive. They would not stand up as evidence
in a libel suit, but they would not have to. All they would have to do is
convince a sysadmin that the writer deserved removal for saying such a thing.
We are NOT protected by the First Amendment here. I would be VERY careful in
setting a precedent of this sort. You, or I, could be the next so silenced.
Think about it.
I would appreciate it if someone would email me the address of this sysadmin
at puff. I will forward this article to him.
-------
BITNET: cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said
|^^^^^^|cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole
|fnord |cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu cause and condemn you to death.'"
|fnord |(and many other foul addresses Lewis Carroll
|______|better left unmentioned) The Mad Arab
mark@pbhyd.UUCP (Mark Crescentini) (11/13/87)
In article <25001COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes: >I think anyone who's been reading this group for any length of time knows >that while Eric was on the net I was one of his more vocal opponents. However, >I cannot condone the removal of his accounts because of his postings. > >I think that Eric DESERVED to have his accounts removed, but I do not think >that we had the right to cause them to be removed. > >------- >BITNET: cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said >|^^^^^^|cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole >|fnord |cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu cause and condemn you to death.'" >|fnord |(and many other foul addresses Lewis Carroll >|______|better left unmentioned) The Mad Arab > All of this talk about 1st amendment rights is ridiculous! Eric Mading lost his privileges to this net because the owner of his local system (in this case - UWis) did not deem his outrageous postings as productive. Let's face it. The majority of the readers of the network are reading this thru the use of their employers or school's machines. And I would hazard to guess on their employers time (cute smiley face)! As an employer would you want Eric Mading spending company resources to post such obvious drivel?? And intentional posting articles in certain news.groups to incite flaming? As far as I'm concerned... Good Riddance! -- ============00000000000=============00000000000===========000000000000========== "In searching for a meaningful embrace, Mark Crescentini sometimes my self-respect took second place." Pacific Bell (415)823-1549 - Iggy Pop {ihnp4,qantel,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!pbhyd!mark
cok@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (11/14/87)
mark@pbhyd.UUCP (Mark Crescentini) writes: >In article <25001COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes: >>I think anyone who's been reading this group for any length of time knows >>that while Eric was on the net I was one of his more vocal opponents. However >>I cannot condone the removal of his accounts because of his postings. >> >>I think that Eric DESERVED to have his accounts removed, but I do not think >>that we had the right to cause them to be removed. [I find interesting that he deleted my next sentence, in which I outright state that the First Amendment has nothing to do with my article. I knew people would choose to assume that I was talking about the First Amendment if I did not include a disclaimer of some sort. However, it seems people chose to assume this even though I did include a disclaimer.] >All of this talk about 1st amendment rights is ridiculous! Eric Mading >lost his privileges to this net because the owner of his local system >(in this case - UWis) did not deem his outrageous postings as productive. > >Let's face it. The majority of the readers of the network are reading >this thru the use of their employers or school's machines. And I would >hazard to guess on their employers time (cute smiley face)! As an employer >would you want Eric Mading spending company resources to post such obvious >drivel?? And intentional posting articles in certain news.groups to >incite flaming? My point had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. I was talking about self-preservation. I am known to have some opinions which some people might consider offensive. Say someone forwarded my articles to a sysadmin who would find my opinions offensive. I could be in trouble. I think that it is a bad idea to set this sort of precedent. I can imagine net.censorship starting in earnest sometime if people get the idea of kicking people they dislike off the net. I have my own detractors on the net. I don't think they would try to have me thrown off the net, but I do not like the idea of self-appointed censors sweeping through my articles looking for offensive statements to forward to the sysadmin at my node. I don't think anyone else should allow this sort of thing, either. ------- BITNET: cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said |^^^^^^|cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole |fnord |cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu cause and condemn you to death.'" |fnord |(and many other foul addresses Lewis Carroll |______|better left unmentioned) The Mad Arab
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (11/15/87)
In article <25001COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes: >I think anyone who's been reading this group for any length of time knows >that while Eric was on the net I was one of his more vocal opponents. However, >I cannot condone the removal of his accounts because of his postings. > >I think that Eric DESERVED to have his accounts removed, but I do not think >that we had the right to cause them to be removed. As one of the people (possibly) who was responsible for causing the revocation of Eric's account, I feel obligated to respond here. I had originally intended to keep quiet, but feel that several assertions made in this article are false. I do not believe that Eric had his accounts terminated because of (or, at least, not solely because of) his posted articles. In my case, it was mail that Eric sent me, personally, which resulted in my sending a letter of strong complaint to his system administrator. I've been posting to Usenet for several years, and Eric's mail to me was the single most offensive piece of trash I have EVER received, one which went far beyond the bounds of civility. And it was fairly clear from the response I got from puff that I was not the only one who had received such mail; there was a long list of cc: respondents attached to the letter I received from Eric's sysadmins. The other thing I disagree with is the assertion that we (whoever "we" are) caused Eric's accounts to be removed. I certainly didn't; in fact, I made it a point to say, in my letter of complaint, that that was NOT what I was asking for, as I felt that that was totally inappropriate for me to ask, especially considering past Net history. All that I asked was for some action to be taken, and left it up to those who knew Eric and knew more of the situation to determine what action was appropriate. It is not for me to tell them what to do; neither is it for me to decry what they did do. I can only assume that they terminated Eric's account because they felt that it was the appropriate action. I believe that this is a sad ending to this whole situation, but also believe that the nature of the situation made a happy ending rather unlikely, if not impossible. Perhaps, if Eric makes it back to the net, he will have learned that a little moderation goes a long way. Personally, I hope that happens, as the one thing that I admired about Eric Mading was his willingness to fight for his opinions; it's just when he changed from a fighter, however misguided, to a destroyer, something had to be done. -- ---------------- Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." gethen!farren@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (11/15/87)
In article <25092COK@PSUVMA>, COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes: > mark@pbhyd.UUCP (Mark Crescentini) writes: > >>I cannot condone the removal of his accounts because of his postings. > >>I think that Eric DESERVED to have his accounts removed, but I do not think > >>that we had the right to cause them to be removed. > My point had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. I was talking about > self-preservation. I am known to have some opinions which some people might > consider offensive. Say someone forwarded my articles to a sysadmin who would > find my opinions offensive. I could be in trouble. I think that it is a bad > idea to set this sort of precedent. I can imagine net.censorship starting > in earnest sometime if people get the idea of kicking people they dislike > off the net. > thrown off the net, but I do not like the idea of self-appointed censors > sweeping through my articles looking for offensive statements to forward to > the sysadmin at my node. I don't think anyone else should allow this sort of > thing, either. it's all very simple: noone has any rights here; we are all at the mercy of someone else; the sponsor of your account, the owner of your machine, the machines up/down-stream from your machine. Our society has simple rules: if you offend the group, you become an outcast - the group will not want to be associated with you nor support your doings. if you bite the hand that feeds you, you get your but kicked as far as the one doing the kicking can remove it. Your claim that noone should inform your sysadmin about articles you post from the machine for which he has the responsibility is absurd; he will want to know if there are articles posted on his machine which are offending people or which damage the reputation of his machine/site/company .... you should be smart enough not to post anything that your sysadmin might agree to finding offensive ... and if a site is tolerant to a point which might offend the sysadmins of neighboring sites, guess what: they may decide that they have better ways to spend their cycles than connecting to your machines. Nothing worse than an anarchist that claims that being offensive is his birthright which society is obligated to tolerate ... Please note that the above remark is not meant to describe any of the authors of the articles to which I am writing this follow-up; I know them neither by name nor by contents of articles well enough to have an opinion about them. -- kraut@ngp.utexas.edu
COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) (11/15/87)
>it's all very simple: noone has any rights here; we are all at the mercy of >someone else; the sponsor of your account, the owner of your machine, the >machines up/down-stream from your machine. Our society has simple rules: >if you offend the group, you become an outcast - the group will not want to >be associated with you nor support your doings. if you bite the hand that >feeds you, you get your but kicked as far as the one doing the kicking can >remove it. I suppose then that you wouldn't mind it if I looked through your articles, selectively edited them, made them look inflammatory and offensive, and sent the resulting mess along with complaints about how your posting offended me to your sysadmin? Or started a "Get kraut off USENET" campaign? Your posting offended the hell out of me, to tell the truth. I'm sure it offended others, also, who have used the net responsibly but possibly controversially. According to you, this is reasonable cause to have you kicked off the net. Do you like the mess your logic would make of the net? This "anarchist" doesn't. ------- cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "I'd love to, m'lad, but this fine Havana cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp magic wand is a bit too short to grant cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu wishes with." Jackeen J. O'Malley
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart) (11/16/87)
Free speech on a network such as this is a delicate balance; while most of us believe it's a good thing, we've also seen various offensive people who we wish would not speak so freely. Aside from being offensive, they risk the existence of the network. There have been large corporate sites which have lost netnews service because of racist or sexist postings that were seen by management. The net in general exists because the people who own the resources (phone bill $$, disk space,..) value the useful newsgroups, and the goodwill of the users, enough to tolerate the open quasi-anarchy that we have here. From a purely selfish standpoint, this net can only survive if it's relatively civilized. The net's grown a lot in the six or seven years I've been reading it. Offensive people have come and gone, all the newsgroups have been renamed several times, people have predicted the death of the net from too much traffic (that was back when we averaged 1/2 Meg/day; it's now about 2 Meg.) It's been able to keep going mainly because a lot of people have worked hard to keep it alive. While I'm offended by people like Eric Mading, I'm more offended by people who want(ed) him evicted from the net. If you don't want to read his offensive drivel, it's easy to avoid. Those of you with good news-reader software have KILL files, and the rest of you could either 'n' past his articles or send him hate mail. If you advocate evicting people from the net, where do you draw the line? While Eric is the most obnoxious person I've seen in a while, other people have also lost their privileges; the Brahms Gang were obnoxious but mainly silly; Tim Maroney's main offense was being a vocal Pagan in the South. Who's next? Me? (After all, most of my postings are requests for information; clearly I'm a parasite :-). You? (Isn't posting to soc.singles or talk.bizarre rather a waste of your company/university's money? Can you still use the ARPAnet after posting to alt.drugs?) I would hope that Eric's computer administrators will let him back on; he's presumably at UMich to get an education, and he can benefit a lot from the technical groups (if he takes the time to read them), from exposure to a lot of ideas he's obviously never seen before; maybe he'll mature some before he gets out into the real world. If not, I've got a KILL file that's just waiting for him :-). -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!pt p
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (11/17/87)
In article <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >it's all very simple: noone has any rights here; we are all at the mercy of >someone else; the sponsor of your account, the owner of your machine, the >machines up/down-stream from your machine. Our society has simple rules: >if you offend the group, you become an outcast - the group will not want to >be associated with you nor support your doings. if you bite the hand that >feeds you, you get your but kicked as far as the one doing the kicking can >remove it. It isn't as simple as you think. If a person, as a result of paying tuition and signing up for certain classes, receives, as do all persons meeting those requirements, an account on a computer, which includes posting privs, they should not be removed because of what they SAY on the net, especially in a group like alt.flame. However, if the account is a guest account, in no way linked to tuition, major, or classes taken, and at said guest account "application", it is made clear that the account is given solely on the good-will and/or whim of the sysadmin, and that it can be pulled for ANY reason, it is not protected and can go away at any time. Unless laws are passed making USENET like television, or newspapers, and the sysadmins like editors, there is little chance that sysadmins will be held responsible for articles, no matter how obnoxious. Then, sysadmins will have to pre-screen each and every article before being posted. Of course, very few of them have time to do this, AND to read the laws and know exactly what is and is not allowed, therefore most will probably just cut their newsfeeds and reduce the risks. But my main point is that if an individual's account is granted because s/he has met a certain criteria, and every other person who has met that criteria has an account and net access, removing that account because of what a person SAYS is wrong. If, on the other hand, it is granted with the knowledge that it is subject to deletion at any time, there is no case possible if the account is then removed. ~r >Nothing worse than an anarchist that claims that being offensive is his >birthright which society is obligated to tolerate ... Then, I suppose that Thomas Jefferson and the other authors of the Constitution were anarchists. Offensiveness *is* protected under the first amendment. If you are talking about someone's "rights" on a computer system, however, you are dealing with something else altogether. Nobody has yet ruled on that, and frankly, I hope they never do, as attempting to adhere to the definitions would not be worth the time of most sysadmins. Mikki Barry
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) (11/18/87)
In article <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU>, ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: In article <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes: >>Nothing worse than an anarchist that claims that being offensive is his >>birthright which society is obligated to tolerate ... > >Then, I suppose that Thomas Jefferson and the other authors of the >Constitution were anarchists. Offensiveness *is* protected under the >first amendment. But harrassment and vicious personal attacks are not. Being "offensive" isn't the issue. Using group taste to regulate other people's behaviors by calling them "offensive" and prohibiting them IS a danger. But that isn't what's under discussion here. What is under discussion is the behavior of certain people that have perpetrated vicious personal attacks, harrassment, and fraud upon other people for their own jollies. Society is NOT obligated to tolerate them. They deserve what they get if their accounts are taken away. If they come back at you with more of the same for daring to document their behavior, then they deserve it doubly so. --Rhonda
msb@sq.UUCP (11/18/87)
R. W. Clark, K. S. C. (COK@PSUVMA.BITNET) writes: > However, I noticed that the shutup of Eric Mading was > very quiet. We would not even have heard about it if the person responsible > for his removal did not post this to the net. Make up your mind! Mark Brader
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (11/19/87)
In article <1853@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >But harrassment and vicious personal attacks are not. Being "offensive" >isn't the issue. Using group taste to regulate other people's behaviors by >calling them "offensive" and prohibiting them IS a danger. But that isn't >what's under discussion here. What is under discussion is the behavior of >certain people that have perpetrated vicious personal attacks, harrassment, >and fraud upon other people for their own jollies. Society is NOT obligated >to tolerate them. They deserve what they get if their accounts are taken away. >If they come back at you with more of the same for daring to document their >behavior, then they deserve it doubly so. One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real world". 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. Thusfar, Usenet has had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all is fair game. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. And as far as I can tell, at the first sign of a real "test case" the academic sites and the backbones will pack it in. Who in their right mind wants to censor each and every article before it goes out because of a threat of lawsuit hanging over your head? "Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if we are to keep this an open and public forum. Those wishing to change it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide what is and is not acceptable for posting here. By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident. It seems that you are talking about something completely different. My remarks are meant to be taken solely in the context of posting obnoxious material, not net-fraud, which is something far more serious, but also leaves little recourse available to the rest of the net. Mikki Barry
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/19/87)
>One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real >world". 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. This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen. Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me. But I don't have to read it, so that's okay. Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I don't have to defend myself, so that's okay. Huh? The net is very much a part of the real world. Last I heard, it was populated with real people with real lives and real feelings, and the laws and societal restrictions that go along with those people are just as real here. The fact that some of the more obscure legal items haven't been argued out in court yet doesn't preclude that common sense and a decency towards your fellow person don't apply. >Thusfar, Usenet has >had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all >is fair game. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. Bullhockey. I may not be a Christian, but "Do unto Others as you would have yourself be done to" seems like a wonderful concept to me. And I notice with some amusement that the folks who are the most abusive on the network tend to be the loudest screamers when the abuser becomes an abusee. And what's even funnier, someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist, abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old, hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them, everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. Face it. The prevailing rule of USENET seems to be "it's okay, as long as I'm doing it to you." We get into this argument every time someone says "I've had enough" and turns the table back. Ken is just one example. I can name probably a dozen cases since I've been on the net of someone who simply got back what they'd given, and had the standard group of yelling screamers make a case that they were discriminated against. It's bull. >"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if >we are to keep this an open and public forum. Baloney. It's perfectly possible to have an open and public forum that doesn't remind you of a kindergarten or a sewer. Personal attacks are the last forum of those who either don't have any facts to back their case or don't know how to do them. If you don't believe me, go and do formal debate for a couple of years. Those folks can be downright hostile and never mention the other party -- because if you do, you lose. It CAN be done. It isn't, on USENET, because it requires thought. Most folks on the net who do the screaming and yelling are too lazy to work for their case. They take the lazy way out and attack the person, not the concept. >By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident. So am I. And all the others that Eric represents -- he's just the latest in a series of nasty people who got hoisted by his own petard. He has no more right to foist his anger and obnoxiousness on us than we have painting swastika's on our neighbor's barn. >Those wishing to change >it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide >what is and is not acceptable for posting here. Face it. Those who are claiming a 'right' to post have no idea what they're talking about. Unless they own, maintain, and pay for the machine that they use to attach to the net, they are there are the agreement of those who DO pay for, maintain, and own that machine. That person is ultimately liable for what that machine does, and can set whatever standards they feel is necessary to keep that machine from either being brought into a legal forum or being made to look bad on the network. There are no rights on the network, any more than you could claim that you have a 'right' to have your letter put on the front page of the local newspaper. Unless you OWN the newspaper, you can't claim any control of its material or content. It don't exist. Rights exist only in relation to carrying out the responsibilities they entail -- a fact most of the screamers conveniently forget. Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved. Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made at one point or another in some form: He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have the right to say he doesn't This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not the cure. chuq (net fascist, ret.) --- Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
root@hobbes.UUCP (Super Duper) (11/19/87)
(Followups to news.admin only) >> Offensiveness *is* protected under the first amendment. >But harrassment and vicious personal attacks are not. I speak here as one who has taken courses at the UW Comp Sci Dept, not as someone who is privy to the decisions made by those in the dept. When I took computer classes at the UW (on puff.wisc.edu, no less) *ALL* users of the machines were *required* to read and sign a double sided page of RULES governing computer usage before they were given an account. This covered such things as who can use your account (NO ONE besides yourself), source code restrictions, machine use (and abuse), game playing, food/drink in the terminal rooms, problem reporting, and the like. The bottom line was that the only thing that the department agreed to provide, and the only thing that you were allowed to use freely, was the tools needed to do your assignments: an editor, a compiler (+ tools), and a terminal to access them with. Anything else (games, email, netnews, networking, and the like) was on an AS IS basis. If the use of one of these other things interfered with any aspect of computer operations it (or your privs to use it) could be removed. If you violated the rules badly enough (disrupting the system, eating in the terminal rooms, letting someone else use your account, violating source code agreements, copying other's assignments...) you would loose your account. All this was spelled out on the rules sheet. I would assume that since he is a Comp Sci student, Eric agreed *in writing* to use puff.wisc.edu for the sole purpose of doing his coursework. It seems that the department decided that his abuse of Usenet exceeded the allowable threshold of non-coursework use; his access was thus terminated. Since he should have read what he signed, I don't feel that he has anything to complain about. Since he doesn't have anything to complain about, why are you all jumping in to complain for him? Tryouts for the ACLU? :-) -John
nyssa@terminus.UUCP (11/19/87)
In article <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real >world". 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. Thusfar, Usenet has >had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all >is fair game. This is a very bad thing to say... Until somebody stops me, I will continue to do blank. What people want to do is not fight the test case, but avoid the test case and watch one's own shop; self policing to prevent external (legal) policing. Saying something nasty here *is* the same as saying it on the street; if I can show damage by what is said here, I can seek recompense through the legal system. You cannot incorporate yourself to be above the law. > There are no rules. There are no guidelines. And as far >as I can tell, at the first sign of a real "test case" the academic >sites and the backbones will pack it in. Who in their right mind wants >to censor each and every article before it goes out because of a >threat of lawsuit hanging over your head? Nobody, true. But if a user at a site shows a consistant tendancy to post potentially libelous articles, it would (probably) be negligent on the part of the system administrator if steps were not taken to stop the articles. Who here wants to fight a suit for contributory negligence? >"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if >we are to keep this an open and public forum. Really? Are we all so immature that we must harrass? This net can be a stronger net without harrassment and personal attacks. If there is a clear netwide policy not to tolerate such actions, then there is a stronger position in court for any potential suit. > Those wishing to change >it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide >what is and is not acceptable for posting here. I'll happily accept international law concerning slander and libel.
cok@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article <34296@sun.UUCP> chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >. . . someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist, >abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old, >hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them, >everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he >was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. I think if you'll note I was the original author of "Defending Eric Mading," you'll find I was flaming Eric Mading after practically every thing he posted to the net. When he posted the "pot smoking Jew" article that got him kicked off the net, I was in the forefront calling him a bigoted moron. However, I was the first to defend him when he was kicked off the net. I see no dichotomy here. >Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a >situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved. >Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made >at one point or another in some form: > He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have > the right to say he doesn't I have never said this in any form. All I say is that you have no right to to anything to keep him from saying what he wants. There's a difference. For example, Mading has the right to spew his bigoted trash onto the net if he so pleases; however, if he tries to act on any of it by discriminating against actual people, then I will be the first to toss him into jail. I've never denied your right to say he doesn't have the right to post, only denied your right forcibly to shut him up. I think you're pulling that quote out of your own imagination. I've seen no- body saying this, in the form you give, or any other form. I don't think anyone's tried to get you kicked off the net for crowing with glee over Eric's eviction. And I don't think anyone's said you don't belong on the net, either. >This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this >statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not >the cure. Of course I see the problem with this statement. I've never made it, though, so don't really see its relevance. >chuq (net fascist, ret.) ------- cok%psuvma@psuvax1.bitnet "I'd love to, m'lad, but this fine Havana cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp magic wand is a bit too short to grant cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu wishes with." Jackeen J. O'Malley
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (11/21/87)
In article <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >In article <1853@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >>What is under discussion is the behavior of >>certain people that have perpetrated vicious personal attacks, harrassment, >>and fraud upon other people for their own jollies. Society is NOT obligated >>to tolerate them. They deserve what they get if their accounts are taken away. > >One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real >world". 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 could also say "you do not HAVE TO answer your phone" to legitimize crank phone callers. I can't accept that, and I doubt that you or anyone else would either. I say it IS the same, we're talking about a public arena. It has been a virtual playground for people to play around and do and say whatever they like. But hasn't it grown far beyond the state where it can continue to be thought of in that way? >You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you. You also don't have to respond when someone breathes at you over the phone. But it IS considred harrassment just the same under the law. The same rules apply in new environments. Perhaps during the early years of the telephone when rules were not clarified, people might have been able to get away with that excuse, saying "it's just the telephone, people don't HAVE to answer it, if I want to make obscene comments over the phone, who can stop me?" But of course, that changed. We are now in a state where we can no longer say "this is JUST the net." >"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if >we are to keep this an open and public forum. Those wishing to change >it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide >what is and is not acceptable for posting here. I think we have a clear discernable differentiation between censoring controversial opinions and censoring people who engage in harrassment and abuse. I say we should use it, rather than succumbing to those who hide behind the words "free speech," saying that they're being persecuted for their controversial opinions when in reality they are being restrained from engaging in abuses. These things are not a "necessary evil" at all. We have the means and the capability to deal with them without endangering real free speech. What we need is the resolve to do so. The absence of that resolve leads to the impression that people can get away with that sort of behavior. A viable deterrent, a clear signal that abusers and harrassers will not be tolerated, is a necessary step in the maturation of the net as a public forum. Otherwise it is just a schoolyard filled with children, and as such it cannot survive. >By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident. It >seems that you are talking about something completely different. My remarks >are meant to be taken solely in the context of posting obnoxious material, >not net-fraud, which is something far more serious, but also leaves >little recourse available to the rest of the net. I think I made a grave error in saying that the delineation was between "controversial" and "obnoxious." What I probably should have said was that the delineation was between "controversial" and "abusive," where abusive includes the type of persistent deliberate annoying harrassment we have been talking about. Against the latter, whether the perpetrator is Eric Mading, "Mark Ethan Smith," or whoever, we DO have recourse, and it needs to be used. --Rhonda
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (11/21/87)
In article <34296@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen. Oh dear. You said something nasty about me. I should write your sysadmin and have your account pulled :-| >Huh? The net is very much a part of the real world. Last I heard, it was >populated with real people with real lives and real feelings, and the laws >and societal restrictions that go along with those people are just as real >here. The fact that some of the more obscure legal items haven't been >argued out in court yet doesn't preclude that common sense and a decency >towards your fellow person don't apply. Common decency has not been legislated. It is not mandatory, here nor anywhere else. My point is that I do not agree with removing someone's account because you disagree with them. Or even because they name-call in alt.flame. >Bullhockey. I may not be a Christian, but "Do unto Others as you would have >yourself be done to" seems like a wonderful concept to me. And I notice with >some amusement that the folks who are the most abusive on the network tend >to be the loudest screamers when the abuser becomes an abusee. And what's >even funnier, someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist, >abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old, >hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them, >everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he >was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. Yes, you are right. Many of those who scream the loudest about free speech on the net will attempt to have other's accounts removed. I have seen it happen many times, and feel it is the height of hypocrisy. I am just very concerned that people's accounts will be deleted because of controversial postings. The "chilling effect" on the right to say what one wishes would be severely limited on Usenet if sysadmins had to read everyone's postings and decide what should and should not be posted. >Baloney. It's perfectly possible to have an open and public forum that >doesn't remind you of a kindergarten or a sewer. Personal attacks are the >last forum of those who either don't have any facts to back their case or >don't know how to do them. If you don't believe me, go and do formal debate >for a couple of years. Those folks can be downright hostile and never >mention the other party -- because if you do, you lose. I did do formal debating, and I know the rules. However, do you really think that those same rules can apply to Usenet with its many and varied talk, soc and alt groups? There has ALWAYS been flaming on Usenet, and there always will be. Right now there are NO RULES. If you want to sit down with others here and create rules that are agreed to by everyone who posts here, with the consequences for violation being loss of access, then go right ahead. Then there will be some clear cut reasons for pulling accounts, and controversey should not be one of them. >So am I. And all the others that Eric represents -- he's just the latest in >a series of nasty people who got hoisted by his own petard. He has no more >right to foist his anger and obnoxiousness on us than we have painting >swastika's on our neighbor's barn. Damaging property is quite different from using one's First Amendment rights. The legal view has always been that as long as there is no rule against it, it is legal UNTIL such a rule is made against it. Since it has not been decided whether libel laws apply here, and since the Usenet has not come up with its own rules for governing itself, arbitrary yanking of accounts is something I feel is wrong. Yanking accounts for violation of clear rules by either the site or the Usenet itself is different. Yanking guest accounts is always fair game if it is spelled out up front that this can happen for any reason. Giving a priviledge to a class of people, then taking it away from one whose ideas you don't like is inviting trouble, unless the rules are specifically spelled out. >Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a >situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved. >Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made >at one point or another in some form: > > He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have > the right to say he doesn't Maybe you should have said *some* of the people involved. Nobody has said that those for pulling Eric's account do not have the right to say that. Your attempt to put my point of view in simplistic terms has distorted it. Of course, the University of Wisconsin can do what the hell it likes. But remember, it gave the account back. It thought that Eric's First Amendment rights were violated. If you disagree, more power to you. I happen to agree with them in this specific case. >This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this >statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not >the cure. If you are speaking of the problem of being nasty on the net, look in the mirror. Seems you are part of the same problem. Mikki Barry
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (11/21/87)
In article <2041@terminus.UUCP> nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Brickyard) writes: >This is a very bad thing to say... Until somebody stops me, I will >continue to do blank. What people want to do is not fight the test >case, but avoid the test case and watch one's own shop; self >policing to prevent external (legal) policing. Of course we want to avoid test cases. I sincerely believe that if there is a test case that in any way holds sysadmins or sites responsible for postings, the Usenet will go away. However, our legal system is based on the fact that unless there is a law or internal rule against action, that action is legal. >Saying something nasty here *is* the same as saying it on the street; >if I can show damage by what is said here, I can seek recompense >through the legal system. You cannot incorporate yourself to >be above the law. The rules on defamation of character show that you must show actual damage in order to be compensated. Especially if a judge finds that you make yourself a "public figure" by simply posting to the net. None of this is yet clear. Nobody is saying that anyone here is "above the law". We just are not sure if the same laws apply here. And what damages can "Jews" seek because Eric Madding said nasty things about them in alt.flame? There are many unclear issues at stake here. It is not as clear cut as some would like to believe. >But if a user at a site shows a consistant tendancy to post potentially >libelous articles, it would (probably) be negligent on the part of >the system administrator if steps were not taken to stop the articles. >Who here wants to fight a suit for contributory negligence? Nobody, right. However, shouldn't the first action be to ask Eric to clean up his act and stop posting the libelous articles? (And as I recall, there were no clearly libelous articles that he posted, just some very stupid ones) It is quite possible that Eric was too stupid to know that he was treading on this ice. A warning would have been more appropriate, if he did, in fact libel someone instead of just posting stupid personal opinions. >Really? Are we all so immature that we must harrass? No, not all of us. But forcibly removing those who are limits the freedom of those who are not. >This net can be a stronger net without harrassment and personal attacks. >If there is a clear netwide policy not to tolerate such actions, then >there is a stronger position in court for any potential suit. And it may be that a strong set of rules for netwide policy will keep those cases from coming to court in the first place. My point is that since there are no such rules, we really don't have any leg to stand on. >I'll happily accept international law concerning slander and libel. So would I, if we could decide how and when it applies here. Mikki Barry
ooblick@mit-eddie.UUCP (11/21/87)
In article <1879@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >You could also say "you do not HAVE TO answer your phone" to legitimize crank >phone callers. I can't accept that, and I doubt that you or anyone else would >either. I say it IS the same, we're talking about a public arena. It has >been a virtual playground for people to play around and do and say whatever >they like. But hasn't it grown far beyond the state where it can continue >to be thought of in that way? Would that a telephone had a KILL file.... Every 6 months or so, the net has yet another case of obnoxiousness to deal with. And every 6 months, it goes away. Only rarely does an account get pulled. If you really think that something must be done about the once in awhile idiot, then the net should enact specific rules regarding actions to take when someone is a jerk. But I really think that Eric Madding's tirades do not constitute harrassment. I believe they were merely obnoxious and in very poor taste. If you believe Mark Ethan Smith has been harrassing you, then why not bring that up as a separate issue. As for "we have recourse", *we* do not. Only the site does. It is up to them to choose to use it or not. Mikki Barry
rick@puff.wisc.edu (Rick Wayne) (11/21/87)
like everyone here at uw, eric signed the account agreement to receive access to puff. his account is alive and well. eric agreed not to use netnews any more. if you will study the history of the First Amendment, you'll find cases establishing that a news channel may refuse to publish anything it wants to (the Fairness Doctrine is applicable only to the "scarce" publicly owned electromagnetic spectrum). if eric or anyone else wishes to set up a computer network to say whatever they please, nobody may stop him/them. an existing network can refuse to publish. if anyone is interested in the issue, i'll look up the cases. as a parenthetical note, i never got any mail from outside the UW system on issues like this till the mading storm broke; now i've got a bucketful. tells you something about how far this one went on the spectrum of offensiveness. the above posting is my personal view--i'll stand by the facts, but this is not the University talking. rick
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (11/21/87)
This article is very long. I promise it's my first and last on this subject. In article <34296@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real >>world". 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. > >This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen. Don't you read your own articles? :-) This is the most frequent cause of personal attacks, sometimes you just can't resist. :-) This is a philosophy to imitate, both he and I, have created an enemy before the first paragraph. I'm kidding. Don't imitate this. >Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me. But I don't >have to read it, so that's okay. > >Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I don't >have to defend myself, so that's okay. Someone does have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I have the right not to believe them, and to get angry or not angry as I wish. >>is fair game. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. > >Bullhockey. I may not be a Christian, but "Do unto Others as you would have >yourself be done to" seems like a wonderful concept to me. And I notice with >some amusement that the folks who are the most abusive on the network tend >to be the loudest screamers when the abuser becomes an abusee. And what's >even funnier, someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist, >abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old, >hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them, >everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he >was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. I'm also bothered by the fact that people only seem to defend obnoxiousness and childishness. If someone posts a program to net that doesn't work and hasn't been tested, and someone says "please test your programs in the future"; there will always be a group of people who say "how dare you insist on quality". In the same way people will say; "how dare you expect people's brains to be connected to their fingers, we have freedom of speech". It is a reflection on people's intelligence that the first amendment has become merely a cliche. All that said I really disagree with what you say above. That biblical quote means we will be rewarded or not for our actions after death. It is not license to treat people like they have treated you. I really believe what people who respond to childish postings are more responsible than the original poster for the fact what we continue to see such trash. There will always be people who will post "just to create a reaction". The reason no one was defending them is that adults have learned to ignore it. They know that defending (reacting) is what the poster wanted, and that will caused an increase in the offending articles. It's not hard to notice when children are acting strange just to get some attention from adults, why is it so hard to notice when adults (acting like children) are acting strange just to get some attention from adults? Some people just like to create a rash of postings. What a sense of power, I can type one paragraph, thirty seconds max, no thought required, and provoke a reaction all over the country (maybe world). The ways to do it are obvious (I'll mention them anyway) - go to the comp.lang.c and ask "about goto's" - go to comp.sys.amiga and ask "what's your favorite kind of computer" - go go rec.ham-radio and ask "for plans to build a 11-meter amp" - go to alt.drugs and say "all drugs are OK and should be legalized" - go to alt.drugs and say "shoot cops" >Face it. The prevailing rule of USENET seems to be "it's okay, as long as >I'm doing it to you." Quoted out of context. <>So am I. And all the others that Eric represents -- he's just the latest in <>a series of nasty people who got hoisted by his own petard. He has no more <>right to foist his anger and obnoxiousness on us than we have painting <>swastika's on our neighbor's barn. The prevailing rule seems to be "sticks and stones may hurt me but words may merely amuse." No one ever said you could deface people's property, they said you could hit the "n" key, have a "KILL" file etc. >Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a "Normal" is the sense of "usual". My dictionary says "established level or pattern that is asscociated with well being, although based on group tendencies rather than on an arbritrary level. By that standard there is no such thing as a "normal snotty comment." >situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved. >Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made >at one point or another in some form: > > He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have > the right to say he doesn't > >This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this >statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not >the cure. I'm sure you would rephrase it as He can't say anything he wants, and I have the right to say he can't or maybe even He can only say what I want him to say If you don't see the problem with this statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're part of the problem, not the solution. Of course the statement people really make is He has the right to say anything he wants, and you're not correct(right) in saying he doesn't have that right
magore@watdcsu.UUCP (11/22/87)
[ I'm only addressing the issue of First Amendment Rights and liability ] Hello Mikki, In article <7460@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: [munch...] >Damaging property is quite different from using one's First Amendment rights. However the issue was that some seem under a false assumption that the Constitutional right protecting freedom of speech somehow includes full liability coverage protecting their ability to lie, slander , phone in false bomb treats, yell 'fire' in a crowded theaters or make others pay their distribution costs. Also [ as many likely know ] there are _separate_ issue here: rights protecting free speech initially -vs- rights protecting liability thus incurred. Say for example, if a doctor said that "eating poison is good for young children" would he then later be exempt from possible criminal charges because of first amendment rights ? [rhetorical, ... no the first amendment rights are not even being questioned.] One of the problems with this issue is that some feel that when the second issue is being dealt with that the first issue [ freedom of speech ] is being infringed. [munch...] >The legal view has always been that as long as there is no rule against it, >it is legal UNTIL such a rule is made against it. Since it has not been >decided whether libel laws apply here, In other words, if there are not yet any cases of someone willfully libeling someone on, say a crowded elevator, that you imply it's legal ?! :-) [rhetorical, ... no, it may not be that simple] and since the Usenet has not come up >with its own rules for governing itself, arbitrary yanking of accounts is >something I feel is wrong. nonsequitur Since there are no strict rules for governing usenet then, almost by definition , what you will see will appear 'arbitrary' and therefor 'wrong'. What you may need to do is attempt to address what you feel is 'right' and work backwards to a system that would fit your view and see how many agree with it. I think such an effort would be worthwhile. [munch...] >Mikki Barry I fully agree, that as you and others have suggested, that more information on this topic should be included in the document distribution for news... Best Regards, # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home ) # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) (11/22/87)
In article <1879@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: >We are now in a state where we can no longer say "this is JUST the net." We are now in a state where we MUST continue to say "this is JUST the net." If you'd only learn to recognize the difference between a real menace and the net, the world would be much better off. There are too many scumbags running around who take life too seriously, who have so little self-respect that they need to demand "to be treated with dignity and respect" when none is called for. Thicken your skin, dweebette, if you intend to go on living in either the net world OR the real world. Or better yet, get a life. -- ///==\\ (Your message here...) /// Roger B.A. Klorese - CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St. Framingham, MA 01701 USA +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@necntc.NEC.COM - necntc!celtics!roger
rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (11/23/87)
In article <7460@eddie.MIT.EDU> ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >Maybe you should have said *some* of the people involved. Nobody has said >that those for pulling Eric's account do not have the right to say that. >Your attempt to put my point of view in simplistic terms has distorted it. >Of course, the University of Wisconsin can do what the hell it likes. But >remember, it gave the account back. It thought that Eric's First Amendment >rights were violated. If you disagree, more power to you. I happen to >agree with them in this specific case. Mikki, according to the posting from UW Comp Sci's news administrator, they notified someone in the Dean's office, and were told that they "might" have violated Eric's First Amendment rights. If you think about it, any bureaucracy as large as UW can't make up its mind about anything like this in the 1-week turnaround in the Mading affair; it was an ad hoc decision to put everything back the way it was. This decision was also no doubt influenced by a recent incident in which a local fraternity was put on suspension (without a hearing) because some of its members were charged with starting a fight in another fraternity house and uttering racist slurs. UW started its own investigation, (AFTER the suspension) and the first thing the "special prosecutor" (a professor from the UW Law School) did was advise the Dean's office that suspending an organization without a hearing was a violation of their first amendment rights. This has no doubt left them shy of other arbitrary actions. It doesn't constitute a ruling that students have a right to use machines to post news. Only a ruling that acting hastily is a bad idea. (Re the frat/racism case: they were not found guilty, just charged. Punishment without trial, I love it. Not to mention collective guilt. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in Wonderland: first the sentence, and then the trial. I am not fond of the fraternity system, but I am fond of the US system of justice, and what has been going on with this case isn't it.) -- Rick Keir -- all the oysters have moved away -- UWisc - Madison "Watch the skies...."
hundt@wind.bellcore.com (tom hundt) (11/23/87)
>>You could also say "you do not HAVE TO answer your phone" to legitimize crank >>phone callers. I can't accept that, and I doubt that you or anyone else would > >Would that a telephone had a KILL file.... I hear they're going to introduce little devices that display the number of the person originating the call... presumably, you could have a small computer hooked to it that looks up the number in a database and turns on a green light if it's "safe" to pick up the phone, and activates an answering machine if it's not. :-) /-^-\ Thomas M. Hundt / BELLCORE Morristown NJ / hundt@bellcore.bellcore.com | | {seismo|ihnp4|ucbvax|decvax|ulysses|allegra|clyde}!bellcore!hundt /--_--\
ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (11/24/87)
In article <4143@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> magore@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR) writes: [Gee, how many kill files have we gotten ourselves into now? [rhetorical... of course, nobody would put this in their kill file :-)]] > In other words, if there are not yet any cases of someone willfully >libeling someone on, say a crowded elevator, that you imply it's legal ?! :-) >[rhetorical, ... no, it may not be that simple] It would be very difficult to libel someone in a crowded elevator unless one has a means of writing so that others can see it. You are missing the point. The point here is that there are many legal definitions that have to be met before defamation of character cases can be won. It is not as easy as "he called me a sniveling scumdog". One must show whether the poster is a public figure within the confines of this net, simply by posting. If one is a public figure, actual damages must be proven, and you must prove that the name caller acted with actual malice. Stupidity itself is not actual malice. And I doubt if you could get a judge to award you damages for being called a naughty name. You can't legislate "niceness". Mikki Barry