karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (05/21/84)
Folks, no one discussing Tim's situation here on the net knows one thing about the case. Consider what we have seen in the case so far: we have seen the defendant's claim to innocence. Since so many people have brought up the suggestion that UNC be taken to court for violation of free speech rights, tell me who would accept such a totally one-sided argument in a court of law? Now, I am not saying that Tim deserved to be kicked off the net. On the contrary, I suspect that he should *not* have been kicked off. But the really important thing about all the argument going on is that WE DO NOT KNOW. Nobody. Not one. Unfortunately, I consider it unlikely that we ever will. The amount of non- and mis-information being relayed on the net at this point is getting to be really horrendous. Consider a few quotes from recent submittors. ---------- >From: crm@rti.UUCP >Oh, all right. I wasn't going to bother with this -- I thought Tim's case >was clear enough, but I can't take much more of the abuse being directed >to Tim when I don't think he's even available on the net any more. ---------- [Editorial addition: Tim is at Carnegie-Mellon U. in Pittsburgh. I understand he even has an ARPAnet address by now, but I'm not sure of its reliability; I won't distribute that until I know it works (there's no sense making 100 MAILER-DAEMONs barf all over creation).] ---------- >Second, I think SOMEONE should consider the complaint that finally knocked >Tim off the net -- it was apparently a complaint about the RELIGIOUS views >that Tim stated on the net. Since NC is a highly rednecked state in general, >I'm not too surprized that they caused trouble. However, UNC is supported by >my tax dollars, and I expect them to obey the Constitutional prohibition >against supporting the establishment of religion. Was anyone else removed from >the net for strongly Christian views? Would we expect it to be reasonable >for a Christian using a net at a *yeshiva* to be removed from the net for >strong Christian beliefs? ---------- You have read more into the Censorship articles than is there. There were only suggestions and intimations that this was the case. The publicly stated reason was that Tim was being very abusive in some of his articles. That is a fact which is hardly disputable. Whether that was just cause for kicking him off the net is highly disputable. I rather doubt it; many people have abused others on the net. ---------- >any insitution of education and learning is engaged in the 'search for >Truth.' The actions at UNC demonstrated that, while Brooks is willing >to enjoy the benefits of a free exchange of information, he isn't willing >to withstand the cost -- sometimes someone will say something that he >doesn't agree with. When there has been no other attempt to screen those >things that people at UNC may say, and when the final complaint SEEMS to have >been mainly religious in nature, then I feel this restriction is clearly >and unequivocally unethical. This unethical action I think is THE reprehensible >part of the whole affair. ---------- What a one-sided (and lopsided) statement! Based on the necessarily heavily- biased account of Tim, you come to the conclusion that Dr Brooks is a close- minded SOB. How DARE you? How much do you know about Dr Brooks? Nothing whatsoever of significance. What have you seen of him so far is an exchange of mail between himself and one other party. That's all. How can you claim such vast knowledge of his mind from that tiny bit of evidence? ---------- >Second, I have seen my own religion, and the religions of some of my best >friends, reviled and condemned on broadcast TV. This does not seem to be >a violation of anyone's rights, and doing so seems to be protected by >freedom of speech. 'If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander.' >Also, certain religious beliefs have been themselves reviled on net.religion >net.philosophy and net.flame. Some of these statements have been abusive. >Should each of these people be removed from the net? ---------- Quite possibly so. I would say that it depends on whether or not you were participating in more abuse than constructive debate. In Tim's case, he participated in at least as much debate as abuse, and hence I don't think he should have been censored. But the possibility is quite distinct. ---------- >I have ascribed motives to Dr. Brooks and other which may not be truely >their motives. ---------- I nominate this for Understatement of the Year. Considering the lack of knowledge which we have about Dr Brooks, you have ascribed motives which are, in all likelihood, *not* true. ---------- >More to the point, they represent a tremendous loss of respect for Dr. Brooks >and for the University of North Carolina, based on the traffic I read and what >I have seen. Although Tim is an acquaintance, I *have not heard word one* from >him about these things, and knew nothing until I read the net traffic. ---------- If you know so little about the situation, why are you making such long and involved comments, particularly when they involve attacks on the academic inte- grity of one of the parties involved? How can you "lose respect" for someone you don't even know? Have you ever dealt with UNC? How is that you can claim that UNC is such a terrible place, having never been there? Enough from that article; let's try another. ---------- >From: kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) >This is an issue of censorship, not license. Since there is no extant >policy for use of the usenet, and no policy for use from [unc], I feel >the administration has/had absolutely no right to lift [tim's] privileges. I >feel any censorship is contrary to the spirit of freedom existing in this >country with respect to communication. I feel especially strongly that >censorship based on personal opinions of what is appropriate, applied on a >case-by-case basis is totally inappropriate. ---------- Baloney. If some individual developed the antisocial habit of posting articles to a newsgroup which consisted of nothing but four-letter words, I would not only expect UNC to censor that person, I would *REQUIRE* them to do so. Tim did not do so, and so, again, I don't think he should have been censored; but you absolutely cannot say that UNC has no right to censor people. If in fact the reason for kicking Tim off the net was due to the abuse which was contained in some of his articles, then UNC was well within its right to censor him; the question which remains is whether or not the abuse in question was sufficient to justify the censorship. The bottom line in all of this is that *we don't know*. ---------- >From: boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) >Most of the discussion about the actions of Tim what's-his-name vs >Brooks, et al @ unc miss the critical issue involved. It is >inappropriate to prohibit SPECIFIC individuals from expressing >their views in such a situation. Had Brooks and Assoc. uniformly >bared use of USENET for none work applications they would have >been on solid group, however to apply this to one individual only >is clearly a violation of that individuals rights. ---------- Nonsense again! We have laws in this country which penalize indi- viduals for their abuses of others' rights. This is, in effect, what UNC did. Whether they were just in doing so is still up in the air. You do *NOT* know that they were not just. But it is time that we stopped claiming that UNC is evil until we know! ---------- >The actions of Brooks and Assoc. are particularly unseemly since >they are at a public institution. ---------- Oh? If I were sysadmin at a state-supported site, and I began to receive articles consisting of nothing but four-letter words, I would go through procedures to have that other site censor the person involved. This is at a public institution, but I think most people would have a hard time arguing that censorship in such a case is inappropriate. ---------- >Tim screwed up by not treating this access denial as a freedom of >speech violation since there are standard grevience procedures for >this type of thing and that failing, the courts would clearly see >it as a constitutional issue. ---------- Are you a legal authority on the subject? What business do you have commenting on a court's stance on this topic? What do you *know*, authoritatively, that you can relay to us on this? I would suggest that you read another article which recounted the problems of a U. of Illinois biology professor, and consider the court's opinion in that case, and *THEN* come back and think about this one again. You may be right; but you may be wrong. You do not *KNOW*. Folks, no one on this net knows what we're talking about. We can argue this until Hell freezes over and we will still not know what we're talking about. We are not *going* to know until we at least hear the other side of the story from Dr Brooks, Capt Mason, and other UNC Computer Science Dept members. So kindly quit making all these bold claims about Tim's rightness or wrongness! -- "Real Men don't feed Usenet bugs!" Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk
boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (05/22/84)
Karl Kleinpaste needs to take some courses in constitutional law.
No matter how much you dislike a particular persons positions you
can not simply ban them from promoting them. It doesn't make
any difference how obscene they might be or how wrong you may think
they are.
The fact that unc!tim was a poor representative for UNC and similar
agruements just isn't important. Having granted a media for people
to express themselves, UNC has made a commitment. You cannot write
off the actions of Brooks and Co. simply by saying they have
rights as administrators that are over and above the right of free
expression.
Some of the arguements that have been presented, in particular by
Kleinpaste, are the same type of nonsense that is put forth in
regard to the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases.
It may sound good but it isn't right.
--
Chris Boylan
{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylansteven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/23/84)
[I defend my right to make dumb little throw-away lines] >> Folks, no one discussing Tim's situation here on the net knows one thing >> about the case. Consider what we have seen in the case so far: we have >> seen the defendant's claim to innocence. Since so many people have brought >> up the suggestion that UNC be taken to court for violation of free speech >> rights, tell me who would accept such a totally one-sided argument in a >> court of law? What Tim posted was hardly a "biased opinion" but rather a series of semi-official corrispondence between himself and the CS faculty at UNC. BY this alone we are left to judge the case (in our kangaroo court), and by this alone it does appear that the CS UNC faculty are generally "close-minded SOB"'s. >> Based on the necessarily heavily- >> biased account of Tim, you come to the conclusion that Dr Brooks is a close- >> minded SOB. How DARE you? How much do you know about Dr Brooks? Nothing >> whatsoever of significance. What have you seen of him so far is an exchange >> of mail between himself and one other party. That's all. How can you claim >> such vast knowledge of his mind from that tiny bit of evidence? No doubt a murderer is not truly EVIL, however I am quite willing to condemn him on that "tiny but of evidence" which I have. Of course murder is not censorship, but the similarities exist. >> The bottom line in all of this is that *we don't know*. The bottom line in all of this is that *YOU WON'T infer from a reasonable (in fact very lengthy) amount of evidence*. >> Nonsense again! We have laws in this country which penalize indi- >> viduals for their abuses of others' rights. This is, in effect, what >> UNC did. Whether they were just in doing so is still up in the air. (This preceeding paragraph should easily take the award for fascist statement of the year) The obvious response: AND WHAT "OTHER'S RIGHT", PRAY TELL, DID TIM ABUSE????? Being able to speak your mind, in this country, is defined as NOT abusing anyones rights. In fact, it itself is a right. Tim was obviously being censored, at a public institution. He was not being censored for writing down swear words, he was censored for holding opinions with which the professors did not agree. This is immoral, if not illegal, since the CS Faculty at UNC is NOT being paid tax money to censor, but rather to spread knowledge. It is the basic premise of all fascist states, that communication can some how "harm" other individuals. All it REALLY does is give "right thinking" people, a chance to hear from another perspective. If you find another's opinions "offensive", you can just tell your side of it (which I am doing right now), and let the readers decide. I only deplore Tim's posting and quitting, instead of taking the case to the ACLU, who, no doubt, would have had a field day with it. No, I don't absolutly *KNOW* who would win, but certainly it would reveal something rotten in the state of North Carolina. Steven Maurer "Real Men get their messages posted!!"
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Example #22) (05/24/84)
Re: On unc!tim: You don't *know* that!_________________________________________ > Folks, no one discussing Tim's situation here on the net knows one thing > about the case. Consider what we have seen in the case so far: we have > seen the defendant's claim to innocence. Though I agree that we've seen one side of the argument, I'd say that that side of the argument was expressed in the editorial statements that Tim added here and there in his mailings. These were enclosed in square brackets. It looks to me that these mailings are *evidence* for Tim's case, not arguments. >> I have ascribed motives to Dr. Brooks and other which may not be truely >> their motives. > I nominate this for Understatement of the Year. Considering the lack of > knowledge which we have about Dr Brooks, you have ascribed motives which are, > in all likelihood, *not* true. Let's put this in the "we don't know" category. You don't know the extent of his knowledge regarding Dr. Brooks. > If some individual developed the antisocial habit of posting articles to a > newsgroup which consisted of nothing but four-letter words, I would not only > expect UNC to censor that person, I would *REQUIRE* them to do so. How would you require them to do so? > If I were sysadmin at a state-supported site, and I began to receive arti- > cles consisting of nothing but four-letter words, I would go through proce- > dures to have that other site censor the person involved. This is at a > public institution, but I think most people would have a hard time arguing > that censorship in such a case is inappropriate. What "procedures" would you go through? By whose standards are we to determine what should be censored or not censored? Freedom of speech includes the right to utter four-letter words. You may think that that freedom does not apply to the Usenet which, after all, exists because a number of institu- tions pay for it; but I submit that the _de_facto_ freedom of speech we have on the Usenet indicates that most of us want no censorship. You take the good with the bad. <Mild Flame On> Discussions of freedom of speech always remind me of an TV interview with Abbie Hoffman I once read about. Paraphrasing: Interviewer: You believe in freedom of speech? Abbie: We believe in total freedom of speech. Interviewer: But surely you don't believe you can yell "fire" in a crowded theatre? Abbie: FIRE!!! I feel that freedom of speech/press is very, very important. It is, after all, the *first* right listed in the Bill of Rights. I can't think of one application of censorship that I can justify. For example, I'm a strong advocator of women's rights; but I can't abide with the views of some feminists who wish to censor pornography. It's the free expression of ideas, though the ideas may indicate sick minds; and it's more important to recognize that such expressions are *symptoms* of the true problem. We may never find out about the true problem if we censor the symptoms. Tim is, one may argue, an employee of an institution and as such must abide by that institution's rules. However, this particular institution seems to have acted capriciously (if the evidence we've seen is a valid indication) and thus unjustly: If there were rules regarding every employee's use of the Usenet, and they were applied to everyone, then Tim would have to abide. Also, as UNC is a public institution, the rules it does apply must be in accordance with the applicable laws. (How's that for a sentence that doesn't say anything?) If, in fact, Tim was being denied access to the net on the basis of the content of his articles, then some pretty fundamental laws are being violated. <Mild Flame Off> (Tim: If you can read this, have fun living in Pittsburgh! Watch out for Liberty Avenue, though...) <_Jym_> ._________________________________________________________. .__! Jym Dyer <> Digital Equipment Corporation <> Nashua, NH !__. .__! Arpanet: dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA <> E-Net: VAXUUM::DYER !__. __! Usenet: ...{allegra|decvax|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer !__
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/25/84)
[] Steve's ramblings sound just like a sound made by a bloated horse relieving itself from it's non-eating end. To match his phrasing, it was a bunch of commie-pinko raving. He seems to like to call anything he disagrees with facist. I'm sure he would not know a fascist from a football if one goosestepped over his nose. In typical left wing fashion, he refuses to weigh the evidence. Instead, he leaps to unfounded conclusions based on nothing more than some ephereal notion of "rights". "RIGHTS? You ain't got no rights, you got privledges. If you abuse those privledges, you ain't got them either, as long as I'm paying your salary." This is essentially how it works out here in the real world. The sooner Steve finds this out, the further he will progress in the real world. It works the same way in leftist countries, but with much worse consequences for deviations. Folks better get the idea that this net is a god given right out of their heads, it ain't. If you want a free wheeling, no holds barred net, you better start one yourself. I feel sure that if the leftys did, they would immediatly bar any comment from the right. They have done this kind of thing before in the media, so why would a net be any different? In conclusion, Tim was wrong to post privledged communications to the net. Tim used poor judgement in demanding replies from his employers. I enjoyed reading Tim's postings, however, once he was enjoined from further posting, and then defied the ban, he was fair game for his employers. This was extremely poor judgement on Tim's part. If I were his employer, I would have to think twice about his ability to make good decisions. Apparently, that is just what UNC did. Finaly, Steve, calling everything you disagree with a facist plot, is just plain dumb. Why not try to see the other side of a story before jumping into the flames. If there are to be flames about this article, please move them to net.flames where we can be more verbose and vicious. T. C. Wheeler
dak@ihuxn.UUCP (Dave Krunnfusz) (05/25/84)
<> It seems to me that Tim took a job with a set of rules associated with it and then chose to ignore the rules. No one forced him to take the job. The rules may have been contrary to what one would expect from a public institution, but they were there from the beginning. If Tim had a problem with them, it should have been dealt with BEFORE he took the job. When one takes a job, one implicitly agrees to live within the guideslines set forth with the offer of work. As far as Tim presenting an unbiased opinion of the situation, it's not clear to me that this is true. As an example, he cites the John Hobson case as another example of censorship (read the last few articles of part 5 of this statement). He implies that it is censorship that *killed* John Hobson. I find this funny since in the article from John Hobson himself, he admits to spending so much time on the net that it was interfering with his work. That's not censorship. I work in the same lab as John did. Many people use the net in this lab. It is OK as long as they get their job done. When it begins to interfere with work, it is NOT OK! To represent this case as censorship greatly reduced the credibility of the rest of Tim's articles. The point is that I believe Tim did not know anything about John Hobson's situation except for what he read on the net. He misinterpreted it and misrepresented it. Most of us out here know nothing about Tim's situation except what we read on the net. We know nothing about any extenuating circumstances. Any rash judgements about Tim or UNC are at best unfounded and at worst could be 180 degrees off the mark. Dave K. he accep
barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (05/26/84)
[*************=8>:) (snort)]
Oh, come on!! What is this 'we can't *know* that' nonsense?
Friends, we can't even *know* that the sun will rise tomorrow, until
it does. So what? We do for unc!tim what we do everywhere else - we form
reasonable assumptions based on the evidence. The evidence in this case
is the published correspondence between unc!tim and various UNC officials.
It is clearly implied in these postings that they constitute a complete
record of the relevant correspondence. No, we don't *know* that it really
is complete and impartial, nor do we *know* that there are no other important
facets of the case that were never discussed in correspondence. Big deal.
It remains true that both sides are free to air their views on the matter
in this net. Messrs Brooks et al have so far chosen not to do so. Their
business. Like a court, my opinions are willing to take evidence from
all sides, but they decide on the basis of evidence received. That evidence,
as far as I can see, strongly favors unc!tim's contention that he is
a victim of censorship, in the moral if not the legal sense.
Isn't that terrible of me? By daring to have an opinion on something
that is not a tautology, I'm taking the risk of being *wrong*! Horrors!
Fortunately for my peace of mind, I realize that my opinions
are only that, opinions. *Unlike* a court of law, my opinions carry no
weight. Unlike a court of law, I can easily change my mind at any time,
if the facts warrant it, with no harm done to anyone.
I do not know unc!tim, and don't recall any of his postings,
though I do recall that he's been a frequent contributor. I've been following
this discussion because I'm interested in other's opinions on what happened,
and hopeful that more actual information on what happened might be posted
(by UNC administrators, for instance). I do not find being told I have
no right to an opinion a useful addition to the discussion.
[The opinions expressed herein are my own foolishness, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of anyone that matters.]
Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric Avenue: {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barryron@brl-vgr.UUCP (05/29/84)
But is it ethical to yell movie in a crowded firehouse? ^Ron
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (05/29/84)
[**] >> Steve's ramblings sound just like a sound made by a bloated >> horse relieving itself from it's non-eating end. To match >> his phrasing, it was a bunch of commie-pinko raving. He >> seems to like to call anything he disagrees with facist. I'm >> sure he would not know a fascist from a football if one >> goosestepped over his nose. In typical left wing fashion, >> he refuses to weigh the evidence. Instead, he leaps to >> unfounded conclusions based on nothing more than some >> ephereal notion of "rights". I seem to have offended your sensibilities, by quoting the current interpretation the bill of rights, and calling restrictions on freedom of speach and press, "fascist". Pardon me, perhaps I should have said "totalitarian". I myself, grieve at the right wing's continuing belief that liberty and freedom are a result of "commie-pinko" thinking. This is assuredly not the case, although I will admit that I would rather be a pesant in the USSR, than I would in El Salvador. >> "RIGHTS? You ain't got no rights, you got privledges. If >> you abuse those privledges, you ain't got them either, as >> long as I'm paying your salary." This is essentially how >> it works out here in the real world. A publically funded university is hardly "the real world", as others have already noted. A university is funded by the government, and therefore must follow the same restrictions that the government does. While you are correct that a private institution does not have to follow the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, (private schools can teach relegion, for example), it does not follow that a public institution has the same right to restrict freedoms. >> Folks better get the idea that this net is a god given >> right out of their heads, it ain't. If you want a free >> wheeling, no holds barred net, you better start one >> yourself. I feel sure that if the leftys did, they would >> immediatly bar any comment from the right. They have done >> this kind of thing before in the media, so why would a >> net be any different? I am not a "lefty", and would not bar anyone from saying anything. I am a centerist. However, if your rather abusive comments are any example of what you consider "comment from the right", I can see why you are dissatisfied with the current state of the media. (As a side note, a leftist friend of mine accuses the US press of not telling the Sandinista side of the story -- refusing to publish all but the reagan administrations point of view on the matter). >> Finaly, Steve, calling everything you disagree with a facist plot, >> is just plain dumb. Why not try to see the other side of >> a story before jumping into the flames. >> If there are to be flames about this article, please move them >> to net.flames where we can be more verbose and vicious. I prefer the cooler atmosphere of net.followup, and refuse to participate in juvinile name calling. By the way, I call nothing a "plot", you made that from whole cloth yourself. I only point out that certain ideas are simply older, debunked, ideas rewritten to appear more palatable. Steven Maurer
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (05/29/84)
Quoting----------------------
Discussions of freedom of speech always remind me of an TV interview
with Abbie Hoffman I once read about. Paraphrasing:
Interviewer: You believe in freedom of speech?
Abbie: We believe in total freedom of speech.
Interviewer: But surely you don't believe you can
yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
Abbie: FIRE!!!
I feel that freedom of speech/press is very, very important. It is,
after all, the *first* right listed in the Bill of Rights. I can't think of
one application of censorship that I can justify.
<_Jym_>
._________________________________________________________.
.__! Jym Dyer <> Digital Equipment Corporation <> Nashua, NH !__.
.__! Arpanet: dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA <> E-Net: VAXUUM::DYER !__.
__! Usenet: ...{allegra|decvax|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer !__
--------------------------end quote
I'm a pretty strong advocate of free speech, myself, but I don't buy the
notion that there is no right that ever takes precedence.
For instance, yelling "FIRE!" can get people killed and for what??
So someone can express an "opinion" that it would be fun to see a crowd
trampled? Even yelling "Popcorn" ought to be "censored" for that matter.
Don't the other people in the theater have a right to see or hear what
they've come to the theater for?
How about libel and slander? Is it okay to ruin someone's career or life
by spreading falsehoods? What about revealing private details of someone's
life? Is there no right to privacy?
I've no idea how this might apply to the case of tim, since I don't
know the details. I just wanted to suggest that while freedom of
speech is a vital right I hold quite dear, it is not the only right.
D Gary Grady
Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-4146
USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary