hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) (12/12/89)
I have an issue that I've been dealing with for the past couple days that may merit discussion. My apologies if this is an old, tired topic. In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating this individual's access to the net. Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when dealing with sexual abuse of children. What would you do? Any opinions, guidance, discussion, etc. would be most appreciated. Larry Hettinger NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (12/13/89)
hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: > In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of >sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted >by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little >bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, >and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where >the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with >the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating >this individual's access to the net. > Am I right or wrong? Unless you have been appointed some kind of network-goodness-evaluator, regardless of what notion might exist of "abuse" of the net, I think you were out of line. Plain and simple, I think it is just none of your business... if the postings bother you, don't read them, or KILL the site/posters out of your (net)life. What standards should your one-person vigilante committee enforce? Will you raise a ruckus for EVERY posting that offends you? Will you go beyond trying to bag the guy's posting privileges and complain to the that's site's feeds and try to get the whole site cut off from the net? Will you try to influence pay-for-play commercial access sites NOT to do business with the guy? What if we all just starting doing things like that for every thing that goes by that irks us? Who should get to decide what is a "crime" and what ought to be the "punishment"? I'm neither the net censor, nor the net policeman; so if I don't like something, I figure I just shouldn't read it. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
scb1@tank.uchicago.edu (Sam Blackman) (12/13/89)
In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > > Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? >I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the >other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when >dealing with sexual abuse of children. > Well, it is in my humble and honest opinion, that as repulsive as the topic is, it was posted to Rec.humor, and because of this fact, it can be assumed that the author mean it as a joke - and only a joke. I think that we owe the author the benefit of the doubt. Because of this recognition on the part of the author, he was within his rights to make the posting - irregardless of the fact that it was in extremely poor taste - and because the joke was posted to an appropriate area, I do not feel that this is an adequate example of net-abuse. If you see the net as I see it, that is, as a communications pathway like any other, then restricting 'speech' based on the the way it is perceived by some is akin to violation of that person's 1st Amendment rights. Playboy, Penthouse, etc. all contain material (jokes, stories, pictures, etc.) that many deem "in poor taste" or "offensive" or "pornographic" however they maintain no right to deprive those who wish to indulge in these materials of those materials. Perhaps this is just an overly wordy way of stating the obvious comment, "If you don't like it, don't read it" I honestly feel that you request to restrict the jokesters net privledges was extremely rash. A kindly admonishment on your part, and a pledge, perhaps on his to put something like "offensive" in the Keywords line so that you might fiter these out, would have been a much better (IMHO) solution. Sam -- Samuel C. Blackman ! InterNet : scb1@tank.uchicago.edu Link : UG0184 University of Chicago ! Disclaimer : Who cares what I say? I'm a student ! 5319 S. Maryland Ave. #2 ! Quote : "Changing the world one person at a time" Chicago, IL 60615 ! Phone : (312) 715-3100 x.60 (w) (312) 947-8652 (h)
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (12/13/89)
In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > >the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with >the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating >this individual's access to the net. > > Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? >I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the >other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when >dealing with sexual abuse of children. Oh sure. Joe.User@site.com is going to read a stupid joke on wreck.humus and then go out and rape kiddies. Get real. Humor is often a device by which people deal with hidden fears and anxieties that would otherwise be difficult to talk about in public. Think of all the jokes that involve death in some way (St. Peter's gate, etc.). Somebody who just had a relative die might get upset by reading a joke about the subject. It seems to me that there are a contingent of folks on the net who read rec.humor with the sole purpose of launching a crusade against various forms of ethnic, religious, sexual, and political humor. If you want to be the official net.censor, feel free, but someday someone isn't going to like something that you have to say either. -- John Berryhill 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (12/13/89)
In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes:
: In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of
: sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted
:...
: Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net?
Free speech includes the right to say things offensive. If it did
not, free speech would be a travesty.
With that aside, the net is not a public resource; free speech is
not relevant, except as in it influences the customs of the net.
"Abusing the net" can only mean violating some technical
requirement of the net. For example, posting those jokes in
sci.philosophy.tech would be an abuse, for without the separation
of topics provided by newsgroups, anarchy would ensue. Similarly,
outright advertisement would be an abuse because many parts of
the net have rules that prohibit that sort of thing.
But posting jokes, now matter how offensive, to a jokes newsgroup,
is not an abuse. Courtesy suggests that really offensive jokes be
rot13'ed, but a lack of courtesy hardly counts as abuse.
You were wrong.
: I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the
: other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when
: dealing with sexual abuse of children.
Excuse me. Which children have been sexually abused? On the NET?
Let's be real. Those were jokes. J-O-K-E-S. Words in a computer.
Nothing more. To confuse words with their denoted actions is a
sign of a serious psychological problem. You should see someone
about that.
Note that followups have been directed to news.misc.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comscott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker) (12/14/89)
In article <379ur-@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: > In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of >sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted >by an individual who will go unnamed. >[...] > Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? >I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the >other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when >dealing with sexual abuse of children. I understand how you feel. I read those postings too. rec.humor has certainly had its share of disgusting postings but this was the first time ever the 'n' key didn't help. However, I'm totally against censorship. I don't believe jokes like that inspire anyone to go out and rape children. I am annoyed that there wasn't adequate warning in the subject line. (The vague warning that was there could mean almost anything). Then there is the issue of what is humor. You can get away with anything if you are funny enough. I have laughed at "sick humor" (such as pedophile jokes) before. However, these jokes were simply brutal as though humor really wasn't the main objective. I don't think censorship is the answer, though. -- Scott Amspoker Basis International, Albuquerque, NM (505) 345-5232 unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott
korenek@ficc.uu.net (Gary Korenek) (12/14/89)
In article <49576@bbn.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: > > In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of > >sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted > >by an individual who will go unnamed... > > [text deleted] > > Am I right or wrong? > I'm neither the net censor, nor the net policeman; so if I don't like > something, I figure I just shouldn't read it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ How do you know that you don't like it unless you read it first? -- Gary Korenek (korenek@ficc.uu.net) | This space Ferranti International Controls Corp. | intentionally Sugar Land, Texas (713)274-5357 | left blank
peed@cell.mot.COM (Andrew Peed) (12/14/89)
hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: > I have an issue that I've been dealing with for the past >couple days that may merit discussion. My apologies if this is >an old, tired topic. It only becomes old and tired when you have two camps screaming at each other instead of discussing the issues. I'll post my two cents now before it degenerates into screaming.... (1/4 :-) ) > In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of >sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted >by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little >bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, >and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where >the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with >the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating >this individual's access to the net. Rec.humor is just that: humor represented in ALL it's forms. Granted, some of those forms are bound to offend SOMEONE; I don't appreciate child abuse jokes either, but I don't deny anyone the right to tell them. As far as asking that the sysadmin consider terminating the individual's access, I think you were WAY out of line, and I daresay that most people on the net will tend to agree. In my somewhat limited experience with Usenet, I think termination has pretty much been limited to cases of malicious intent. > Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? You were wrong. Sorry to be so blunt, but there it is. In my book (which I read extensively, even if no one else takes it off the shelf), abuse of the net consists of things like: a) Massive crossposting of messages to newsgroups not concerned with the contents of the message. b) Forgery, malicious and otherwise. c) Use of the net for commercial gain. If corporations want to advertise on the net, let them support the cost of operating it. There are other abuses, but these are the main ones that come to my mind right off the bat. >I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but Such a wonderful word -- "but," -- don't you think so? > on the >other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when >dealing with sexual abuse of children. If you want to take action, teach your children what to do in the event someone makes sexual advances to them. In the meantime, all you can do is wait for Mankind to evolve. -- Without waves, there is no tide and no change. Motorola, Inc. Andrew B. Peed Cellular Infrastructure Division ..!uunet!motcid!peed
880139h@aucs.uucp (Rob Hutten) (12/14/89)
scb1@tank.uchicago.edu (Sam Blackman) writes: >In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes: >> >> Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? >> [ Description of an obscene post involving sexual molesting of childern] >If you see the net as I see it, that is, as a communications pathway like >any other, then restricting 'speech' based on the the way it is perceived >by some is akin to violation of that person's 1st Amendment rights. Playboy, >Penthouse, etc. all contain material (jokes, stories, pictures, etc.) that >many deem "in poor taste" or "offensive" or "pornographic" however they >maintain no right to deprive those who wish to indulge in these materials >of those materials. Perhaps this is just an overly wordy way of stating >the obvious comment, "If you don't like it, don't read it" This argument is somewhat flawed. The comparison of rec.humor to a pornographic magazine is faulty because when one purchases a Penthouse, one knows EXACTLY what will be in it. I read rec.humor regularly for the occasional witty joke, but I take for granted that it will not contain child pornography. I would agree to your point if the offending article was posted in alt.tasteless; then I could not complain because I was duely warned. Likewise, if it had been rot-13ed I would have been prepared for something offensive. The offensive posting to rec.humor is akin to having a scene of explicit sexual assault of a child in a comic book that can be bought in any corner store. The poster's main offence was not then the subject material of the so-called humor, but the fact that is was posted to a general-interest newsgroup where it could be read by anyone. >I honestly feel that you request to restrict the jokesters net privledges >was extremely rash. A kindly admonishment on your part, and a pledge, >perhaps on his to put something like "offensive" in the Keywords line >so that you might fiter these out, would have been a much better (IMHO) >solution. >Sam I agree. As much as I personally would like to see this sort of posting banned, I don't feel we as subscribers have any right to restrict the priviledges of another. - rh -- -------------------------------------------------------------+----------------- " Outside in the cold distance a wildcat did growl | Rob Hutten two riders were approaching and the wind began to howl..." | 880139@aucs.uucp -------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------
csachs@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Colin Sachs) (12/14/89)
(Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: [intro paragraph deleted...] > In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of > sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted > by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little > bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, > and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where > the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with > the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating > this individual's access to the net. > > Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? > I have no wish to infringe an individual's rights but on the > other hand I feel compelled to take action, particularly when > dealing with sexual abuse of children. [concluding plea deleted...] Nothing. You didn't have to read them if you found them offensive. Just skip over those articles you disagree with, find offensive or otherwise have a problem with... that's one use of reading the subject line. Otherwise, don't complain about what you find in the articles you do read if you've a problem with them. Build yourself a nice heafty kill file of people you find make offensive postings and you'll never have read anything by them again. You were *very* wrong in your actions. I'm willing to bet that the stuff you read was rot13 decrypted... you had to make a conscious choice to read it and you chose to do so. Now just live with the consequences. The only action you should have taken was to, possibly, reply directly to the individual who posted. But if the posting was rot13, then it is your own problem for having read it: no one *made* you. No reply to the posting individual should have been made. Censorship of *anyone* on the net is a Bad Thing. You have absolutely no right to judge what is permissable for posting or impermissable. Abuse of the net might logically be construed as dumping massive amounts of bogus postings to it just to tie up systems, posting under an assumed or forged path/user account/user name, posting copywritten works in whole with out permission or in part without citation, or other such things. It is permissable, and not an abuse, to post ones views, opinions, or arguments to the net. No matter who disagrees. -- Colin Sachs - csachs@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu "All of mankind is a child waiting to be amused." - James Legare, March 8, 1989
capehart@arrakis.nevada.edu (ANNE CAPEHART) (12/15/89)
cosell@bbn.com writes: hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: >> In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of >distic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted >>by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little >>bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, >>and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where >>the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with >>the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating >>this individual's access to the net. >> Am I right or wrong? >Unless you have been appointed some kind of network-goodness-evaluator, >regardless of what notion might exist of "abuse" of the net, I think >you were out of line. Plain and simple, I think it is just none of your >business... Sorry, I have to disagree! No, he's not the network censor; neither am I. But someone else's rights stop where my nose begins. And when one makes light of child abuse on a public forum, my nose is getting rubbed into it. Maybe the person did have the "right" to post such jokes. But I also have a right to strongly voice my opposition to them! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Racel-Capehart internet - capehart@arrakis.nevada.edu University of Nevada, Las Vegas compuserve - 72105,1105 Yes, for the millionth time, life does exist in Vegas beyond the strip!!
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/15/89)
Which is worse: posting sick child abuse jokes on a public net? Or sabotaging someone's career (calling bosses etc.) in revenge? Answer: It doesn't matter -- they're both stupid, awful things to do. Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't post abusive material to the net. If you see someone else doing it, mail your complaints to them or ignore it as you see fit -- don't threaten the net as a whole by using it to threaten people's careers. The next call could be to YOUR boss! -- To have a horror of the bourgeois (\( Tom Neff is bourgeois. -- Jules Renard )\) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) (12/15/89)
Several days ago I addressed a question to the net concerning the appropriateness of an action I had taken against an individual who had posted what I considered to be unusually offensive jokes on rec.humor. The actions I took were to flame him via e-mail, and to file a protest with the sysad at his university. The response to my question has led me to conclude that I was indeed wrong to take both of these actions. At the most I should have confined myself to flaming the person by e-mail. Contacting his sysad was clearly out of the line, and for that I apologize to the net - I have already apologized to the original poster as well as to the sysad. There were a couple of things I learned from all this. The one that hit home the most was how easy it is to become a censor - especially when you read something that you find deeply offensive. I don't feel that simply ignoring things that offend is necessarily always the best thing to do, but the reaction should be toward the individual involved and not to another outside authority. The comments of the people on the net, although largely critical of me and the actions I took, were well-reasoned and thought provoking. I have taken steps to resolve the situation and encourage others who filed protests to do the same. I would like to say, however, that I don't think that someone who reads a joke about child abuse is going to run out and commit child abuse (as one poster suggested), nor do I equate words concerning child abuse with the activity itself (as another suggested). I understand that it was probably difficult to derive that from my first posting. Larry Hettinger NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov Somebody pass me a big slice of humble pie...
kendall@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Stephen P. Kendall) (12/15/89)
If your site has recieved my previous post then please disregard it. The
gentleman has apologised for his actions and has stated that they were
not appropriate. That is good enough for me.
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}
Stephen P. Kendall kendall@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University 00spkendall@bsu-ucs.bsu.edu
"What do you want?"--six "Information..."--two "You won't get it!"--sixbjacobse@rucs.radfordu.edu (Barry Jacobsen) (12/15/89)
In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov (Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: > > I have an issue that I've been dealing with for the past [ appology deleted ] > In rec.humor I read a particularly brutal series of > sadistic jokes dealing with child abuse and pedophilia posted > by an individual who will go unnamed. I have spent a little > bit of time yesterday and today blasting this person via e-mail, > and I wrote to the system administrator at the University where > the posting originated. I basically just lodged a protest with > the sysad, but also asked that consideration be made of terminating > this individual's access to the net. > > Am I right or wrong? What constitutes abuse of the net? > hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov What strikes me so funny, NOT to say that I condone child abuse in ANY way, shape or form (including forcing the poor kid to enjoy? shopping when it's apparent s/he wants a nap/bottle/etc...) but how about the murder that was made legal, or students not having to attend school, or you name it. I read the posting, and with all things being equal, the FACT that it was posted to REC.HUMOR not to REC.SADISM or SCI.CHILD.ABUSE and read IN CONTEXT meaning for those who can't understand the newsgroup titles and SIMPLE ENGLISH it was meant as a joke (HA HA VERY FUNNY. (period)) the author himself said that he didn't approve. I mean, hey, let't rip off the heads of people who tell polock jokes, or catholic jokes, or (GOD help us) mathematician jokes, jeez guys I guess what _I'm_ saying is, to coin a phrase: _HE_ WAS JUST JOKING, CAN'T _YOU_ TAKE A _JOKE_??? Besides didn't your mothers teach you about sticks and stones... like I said I don't condone it, and yes I have said something to people about how they treat their child/ren badly, or such but I think that we're boardering on histerics here...nuf said... Besides wouldn't want to sound like the JOKE about rec/sci/alt.aquaria/etc. +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | NO .sig file...NO disclaimers... | | I claim everything, and the guy with the most toys | | when he dies, WINS! | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
cy@dbase.UUCP (Cy Shuster) (12/19/89)
I read the discussion here before I ran into the jokes on rec.humor. Certainly individual responses are subjective, and the replies posted here seemed very level-headed. My feelings changed upon encountering the jokes. I am nauseated to even recall them: let's just say they were more about child mutilation than simple "abuse". They were more repulsive than any "dead baby" joke I had ever read, by... how to describe it? Tens of orders of magnitude outside normal rec.humor. Anyway, I understand the viceral response of the original poster. --Cy--
unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan) (12/21/89)
In article <929@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU> csachs@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Colin Sachs) writes: >(Lawrence J. Hettinger) writes: [Stuff about what he did with postings in rec.humor deleted] >You were *very* wrong in your actions. I'm willing to bet that the stuff >you read was rot13 decrypted... you had to make a conscious choice to read >it and you chose to do so. Now just live with the consequences. If you had read the postings that followed this letter, rather than just reply without reading the followups, you would see that Mr. Hettinger saw the error of his actions and apologized for the mistakes he made regarding this situation. You would ALSO have seen that the offending posts were NOT rot13, nor was the subject line suitably written to warn that items of questionable taste were contained in the posting. Therefore, as has been stated earlier, the original poster was also in the wrong. We have all hashed this out with Mr. Hettinger and everything is taken care of. I suggest that in the future, we all read the followups to articles posted to make sure that we aren't beating a dead gelatin, er, horse (see sci.chem :-). Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah to you all. Charles Balan UNCCAB@med.unc.edu , UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp , UNCCAB@unc.bitnet %%%%%%%%%%%%% A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire %%%%%%%%%%%%