RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (11/29/88)
Nancy Gould writes: [Referring to how wonderfully liberal and enlightened thing called censorship] >It's called politeness and consideration for the feelings of >others. Neither politeness nor consideration for the feelings of others can, or should, be legislated. One might think that referring to Brad Templeton as being the next worst thing to a Nazi is hardly polite or considerate. >No one person can be the authority. I think it just depends on how >many people complain. If the number is significant, maybe the joke >really is offensive. There is no law against being offensive. If there were, perhaps Makowsky, Richmond, and their ilk would have been imprisoned quite some time ago. fc
RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (11/29/88)
Nancy Gould writes: [Referring to a wonderfully liberal and enlightened thing called censorship] >It's called politeness and consideration for the feelings of >others. Neither politeness nor consideration for the feelings of others can, or should, be legislated. One might think that referring to Brad Templeton as being the next worst thing to a Nazi is hardly polite or considerate. >No one person can be the authority. I think it just depends on how >many people complain. If the number is significant, maybe the joke >really is offensive. There is no law against being offensive. If there were, perhaps Makowsky, Richmond, and their ilk would have been imprisoned quite some time ago. fc
mark@verdix.com (Mark Lundquist) (11/30/88)
In article <63028RWC102@PSUVM> RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) writes: >Nancy Gould writes: > >[Referring to how wonderfully liberal and enlightened thing called censorship] > >>It's called politeness and consideration for the feelings of >>others. > >Neither politeness nor consideration for the feelings of others >can, or should, be legislated. One might think that referring "Legislated?" Legislation means enacting laws, in particular laws that pertain to how individuals are permitted to behave. What's at issue here is neither any kind of law nor the prohibition of any individual behavior. It's simply that moderating a newsgroup is a matter of judgement, and some of us think that the moderator _ought_ (in the ethical sense) to exercise a certain kind of judgement. >There is no law against being offensive. If there were, There's that 'law' thing again! Looks to me like a misapprehendin' of the issue. This isn't the first argument that has tended toward this kind of equivocation, starting with some sentence that we all agree with ("You can't/shouldn't legislate courtesy") and invoking it in a situation that is really quite different. (straw man mode on) OK, maybe you really meant 'prescribe'..."You can't prescribe courtesy"...But that might change the character of the argument substantially (like, it might begin to look highly question-begging).