rhonda@chinet.UUCP (11/16/87)
In article <7368@eddie.MIT.EDU>, ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: >In article <1232@puff.wisc.edu> mading@puff.wisc.edu (Eric Mading) writes: >>So Doug Ginsburg likes his reefer. That doesn't suprise me, he is a >>Jew. I think Ronnie should tell this pot-smoking Jew to get his ass >>out of the country and deport him to Israel, where he belongs. > >How could we have been so stupid, fellow netters? This Eric Mading >is obviously a colaboration between Rich Rosen and Matty Weiner. Well, I guess this means these bozos have now been kicked off the net twice! Some people never learn. :-) The idea had crossed my mind, that Matthew Wiener had just found a new home to act like a jerk in, but I said no, it's too farfetched. But who knows? The combined "strength" of Rosen and Wiener, could it generate enough asininity to power an Eric Mading? If the rumors are true that Eric Mading has been really kicked off the net, I shout hooray! Never mind the cries of people saying this is net fascism. People's behaviors are regulated by social mores, and the rude harrassing obnoxious behavior exhibited by these people merits some punishment. Some people say that closing down Mading's account is "bad" because it means "controversial" posters can be canned at any time. Bull. There's a difference between "controversial" and "obnoxious." People who express political or personal opinions about the world that grate against the norm are controversial and should be protected under first amendment rules. People who chase people around and harrass them with stupid childish name calling are obnoxious and shouldn't be so protected. The law bears this out. Lumping the controversial toghether with the obnoxious is wasteful, it doesn't help the cause of protecting free speech, and it clouds the issue. There's no reason to protect the obnoxious in order to preserve the freedoms of the controversial. It's not like these people are being CALLED obnoxious to squelch their controversial opinions, is it? --Rhonda
anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (11/17/87)
In article <1843@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner) writes: ]There's ]no reason to protect the obnoxious in order to preserve the freedoms of the ]controversial. Sounds like a vote for Hitler to me, functionally equivalent to killing those you don't happen to like. ==ARPA:========anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu======Jess Anderson====== | UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,akgua,ihnp4, 1210 W. Dayton | | allegra,ucbvax}!uwvax!wircs3!anderson Madison, WI 53706 | ==BITNET:===============anderson@wiscmacc======608/263-6988=======
tr@wind.UUCP (11/18/87)
In article <1843@chinet.UUCP> rhonda@chinet.UUCP writes:
$ [...]
$ Some people say that closing down Mading's account is "bad" because
$ it means "controversial" posters can be canned at any time. Bull.
$ There's a difference between "controversial" and "obnoxious."
$ People who express political or personal opinions about the world
$ that grate against the norm are controversial and should be protected
$ under first amendment rules. People who chase people around and
$ harrass them with stupid childish name calling are obnoxious and
$ shouldn't be so protected.
$ [...]
In principle, maybe.
But in practice, NO WAY! Whose job is it to distinguish between
controversial and obnoxious? What method works reliably? Nobody;
none. That's why freedom of speech means the freedom to word what
you want to say any way you want goes along with the freedom to
say what you want.
I find Eric offensive too. Nothing he has said has been constructive
or insightful, or good in any way. I also think that he is baiting
us and that annoys me. His remark about Jews, even if it was a
joke, was really uncalled for.
But your delineation between the obnoxious and the controversial
is useless, Rhonda. There is a difference between the two but
there is no justification in silencing someone for either reason,
unless you don't really believe in the right of free speech. If
you want to argue against free speech go ahead. But free speech
is free speech, and it is not a censor's job to make your delineation.
Tom Reingold INTERNET: tr@bellcore.bellcore.com
Bell Communications Research UUCP: <backbone>!bellcore!tr
435 South St room 2L350 SOUNDNET: (201) 829-4622 [work]
Morristown, NJ 07960 (201) 287-2345 [home]oleg@quad1.UUCP (11/19/87)
Mikki, a woman of wit, had made a sarcastic joke: >>How could we have been so stupid, fellow netters? This Eric Mading >>is obviously a colaboration between Rich Rosen and Matty Weiner. Rhonda Scribner, who thinks she has wit, but is only half-right, and is incapable of sarcasm, makes some remarks about Matthew and Rich. Not that it matters, but Matthew and Rich could hardly have made an anti-semitic posting or had denounced drugs -- they both are far too intelligent to hold either of those positions. But Rhonda, as always, responds to the form, not the substance -- she dislikes rlr and weemba, and she dislikes Eric... It's all very clear to Rhonda -- they must be the same person! Yes, I know, we ALL are Rich Rosen... >People who express >political or personal opinions about the world that grate against the norm >are controversial and should be protected under first amendment rules. >People who chase people around and harrass them with stupid childish name >calling are obnoxious and shouldn't be so protected. Under that rule, Rhonda falls into the "obnoxious" category. Mading wasn't much more offensive than Rhonda. Mading was even willing to admit being wrong on several occasions -- something Rhonda would never do. Mading WAS an unpleasant person -- like someone who smells bad, dresses in rags, never washes, smokes cheap cigars and insists on standing close to you in a small, unventilated elevator, breathing his tooth rot in your face while expounding on his inane world views... Is that a reason enough to have him shot? Rhonda, just wait! One of these days Mading is going to get a brain and get himself a BBS or public-access, pay service UNIX account, just like you and Mark Ethan Smith have done. He will be on equal footing with the rest of the lunatics on the NET -- what are you going to do to shut him up THEN? Or, as someone said, what if he shows up on some .GOV site? Bird Dog, who got shut down on an .EDU site is now working for Gould... -- Oleg Kiselev -- oleg@quad1.quad.com -- {...!psivax|seismo!gould}!quad1!oleg HASA, "A" Division DISCLAIMER: I don't speak for my employers.
rhonda@chinet.UUCP (11/20/87)
In article <3615@bellcore.bellcore.com>, tr@wind.bellcore.com (tom reingold) writes: >$ Some people say that closing down Mading's account is "bad" because >$ it means "controversial" posters can be canned at any time. Bull. >$ There's a difference between "controversial" and "obnoxious." >$ People who express political or personal opinions about the world >$ that grate against the norm are controversial and should be protected >$ under first amendment rules. People who chase people around and >$ harrass them with stupid childish name calling are obnoxious and >$ shouldn't be so protected. > >In principle, maybe. >But in practice, NO WAY! Whose job is it to distinguish between >controversial and obnoxious? What method works reliably? > >I find Eric offensive too. Nothing he has said has been constructive >or insightful, or good in any way. I also think that he is baiting >us and that annoys me. His remark about Jews, even if it was a >joke, was really uncalled for. > >But your delineation between the obnoxious and the controversial >is useless, Rhonda. There is a difference between the two but >there is no justification in silencing someone for either reason, >unless you don't really believe in the right of free speech. If >you want to argue against free speech go ahead. But free speech >is free speech, and it is not a censor's job to make your delineation. I think that delineation is not useless at all. Clearly no one supports what Eric said. No one in their right mind would come out to defend ethnic slurs, accusations about entire groups of people based on stereotypes and prejudice, designed to antagonize, humiliate, or defame those people. If you look around at what people are saying, NO ONE has come out and said that what Eric said had any merit whatsoever. And EVERYONE who has said anything at all has deliberately disassociated themselves from any implication of giving their blessing to what Eric said. Why? Because we KNOW this is something that falls clearly on the negative side of this delineation. Some people are claiming that, because there are cases where the delineation is blurred, we must abandon it entirely and allow absolute free speech. But this is a bad argument. There are times when there are very clear distinctions between something between abusive or harrassing and it just being controversial. What was the controversiality regarding the Brahms Gang chasing people around the net shouting "ayuck yuck" at everything they said and calling them names in an effort to diminish THEIR rights to free speech? Was there ever a question about whether or not this was anything but two children engaging in childish taunts for which they deserved (and hopefully got) punishment? Matthew and Gene have on occasion presented opinions on various topics. Are they trying to say there is no difference between professing opinions (however controversial) and shouting at other people without discussion content other than name calling? Are "Captain Carnage," "ayuck yuck," and "moron twit" opinions, the results of their endless years of university book learning, or are they something else? The fact their only rebuttals to others' opinions have so often been petty insults like these shows how little they have to say. Maroney's opinions may have been overtly bizarre, but does Matthew's disagreement with their opinions (or his personal well reasoned evaluation that Tim, like everyone else who disagrees with him, was an idiot) mean that Tim and others like him DESERVED to be subjected to Matthew's raving idiocy and annoying harrassment? Did the Brahms Gang rewrite that famous quote to read "I may not agree with what you say, but YOU will defend to the death MY right to call you names and harrass you for saying it?" And where was the "controversiality" in Mark Ethan Smith's making up lies about me and other people because we disagreed with her? The real offensiveness is when people who are being nothing but harrassing and abusive hide behind the words "free speech," claiming that they are really being persecuted for their "controversial" opinions. If they get their way, if their vicious abusiveness of other people is considered on the same level as personal controversial opinions, in the long run we will LOSE all semblance of free speech in this country. Of course there are cases where the distinction is blurred. But that doesn't affect situations where the distinction is clear cut! At least it shouldn't. People who are promoting free speech as an absolute are simply wrong, free speech is NOT an absolute, and we know this by the very fact that there are exceptions. And there's no reason to declare it as an absolute, to throw away the distinction between true free speech and abuses of that right, just because there are cases where the distinction isn't clear. The unclear situations are why we have a judicial system, to arbitrate and decide upon those cases. --Rhonda