norman@sdcsla.UUCP (Donald A. Norman) (02/13/85)
Something nasty and quite inappropriate society seems to be taking
place. I decided to ask Gary (Perlman) just what it was that happened that
caused his decision. His response was quite distrubing, at least to me:
... recently, for reasons not entirely clear to me, I started
to get personal hate mail. At first, it was just attacks
on my qualifications, and those of the Wang Institute. Then
I started to get a continuous stream of personal attacks of
the poorest of taste. I found that I was dreading reading my
mail, it got me so fired up. I got good at identifying
the messages from the headers and just deleted them for a week.
I sent out notice of my net death, and I have not received any
hate mail lately, just a lot of inquiries.
This goes far beyond the normal flames and diatribes we see on the net itself.
THe only parallel I can think of comes from those who physically attack and
abuse the homes of people whose public policies they disapprove of.
I find it appalling. I would be tempted to take legal action against the
culprits. The net -- and normal life -- can only survive if we practice
tolerance against one another. Personal attacks and verbal abuse simply should
play no role in the kinds of discussions we have on the net.
Donald A. Norman
Institute for Cognitive Science C-015
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
UNIX: {ucbvax,decvax}!sdcsvax!sdcsla!norman OR ARPA: norman@nprdcdavid@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (02/20/85)
In article <799@sdcsla.UUCP> norman@sdcsla.UUCP (Donald A. Norman) writes: (in reference to Mr. Perlman's claim of persecution by private mail): >THe only parallel I can think of comes from those who physically attack and >abuse the homes of people whose public policies they disapprove of. > >I find it appalling. I would be tempted to take legal action against the >culprits. The net -- and normal life -- can only survive if we practice >tolerance against one another. Personal attacks and verbal abuse simply should >play no role in the kinds of discussions we have on the net. > "Legal action"? Did Mr. Perlman claim to have received threats? Were there libelous attacks against him which were communicated to a third party? If not, I suspect the First Amendment will take a dim view of "legal action." Don't get me wrong: I rather agree with your sentiment but, like some others in the discussion regarding headhunter advertisments in net.jobs, I believe the First Amendment to be one of the most important parts of the Constitution. (That's why I'm just a little queasy about Stargate. But that's the subject of another diatribe.) I too believe that verbal abuse is a Bad Thing but censorship is much much worse. To generalize (actually, to spiral out to another subject), it seems that a number of net discussions involve and are frequently centered on the question of censorship, in one form or another. When I was in school (an Ivy League, one of the best examples of American scholarship, American values, et. al., ad nauseum), I tried to put up posters on the bulletin boards in my dormitory. These posters advertised a dance sponsored by a group that many would consider laughably middle-class. The posters were ripped down repeatedly by fellow students who did not like the sponsoring group. (I "won" by using Scotch-brand permanent spray adhesive. It's like "Spray-Mount" [A tradename of the 3-M Corporation] but permanent. Boy were they upset with me! Heh heh heh. The posters are still there, three years later. Heh heh heh.) These students seemed to forget the concept of a "University" as a community of scholars and a community of ideas, freely expressed, to the betterment of all. Thus was I tought the importance of censorship. Almost everyone can find some idea, some outlook, some philosphy with which he or she violently disagrees. The temptation is always strong to use the force of numbers (majority rule) to say "We are sorry but what you are saying is dangerous and therefore we will not let you say it. We will use our guns and swords and stones to prevent your voice from being heard." This is a Bad Thing. One purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the minority from the majority. The First Amendment must apply to everyone or it applies to no one.
jj@alice.UUCP (02/21/85)
Mr. Perlman is not the only person to experience the problem of hate mail. It seems that there are quite a few individuals on the net who feel the need to express themselves in insulting, demeaning, or outright threatening terms. I have no knowledge of those who Mr. Perlman experienced difficulty with, and I suspect that my own experience does not involve any of those principles, in any way, however, I have also experienced the same sort of hate literature, attacks on personal competence, and the like during my time on the net, both involving net.audio (where I qualify as recognized and practicing professional) and opinion groups (politics, flame, abortion) where I speak as an individual. One might note that I have been very inactive of late, as have many other former net contributors. It is ALSO my impression that the net is inexorably driving responsible and informed contributors away in all areas, as the SNR of the net AND the attitudes of the noise generators both decrease in acceptability. Speaking for myself, I see no reason whatsoever to make observations in net.audio/physics or whatever that are based on common textbook principles that I work with every day, only to be told that I am utterly informed, and that I should go to grade school. <I am deliberately eyphimizing what I have been told.> Bye bye, -- "the other man's grass is always greener, some are ..." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj