Xref: utzoo soc.motss:19634 talk.rumors:3093 news.admin:6711 news.misc:3532 Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!bu-cs!buengc!bph From: bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.rumors,news.admin,news.misc Subject: Re: USENET site admin responsibilities (was: Re: Censorship is for Wusses) Summary: Censorship is still for wusses. Freedom is for everyone. Message-ID: <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> Date: 3 Sep 89 18:30:45 GMT References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng. Lines: 263 Preface: Since my posting of the "open letter", I have been informed by persons in the decision-making element concerned with this at Mr. Pruss' site that they in fact did not eliminate his access, but rather discussed the ramifications of his writings with him, and let him decide which way to go. It is apparent to them and me that it is Mr. Pruss who has kept himself quiet since this first became a topic of derision. They have, innately, done the thing I suggested, and long before I suggested it. They have my admiration, and my apology if I caused them any concern. The discussion that has evolved, however, is not affected by these facts, as it is a general discussion of the philosophy of freedom, free speech in particular. In article <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) writes: >I am tempted to reply by saying something like: > "It seems that you consider the right of one person to post > sniveling idiotic comments under other names to be paramount > over the rights and obligations of a system administrator to > preserve the availability of USENET news for 1/4 the population > of the country." (You overestimate the importance to the average North American and distribution of Usenet, but that's impertinent.) I consider free speech to take precedence over privileged communication. A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions. The government could bomb your house for your opinions, creating imaginary emergency situations and seizing it under eminent domain in order to do so; would you consider it right that they do so? What if they said your opinion was described by your neighbors as "offensive" but could not be shown to be physically damaging? >In article <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > >> An open letter to all usenet administrators: > >Ah, good; we've targeted the appropriate group. It is they who execute these decisions. It is they who need to know. It is the rest of the net and those who saw the genesis of the problem who need to know it's been said. No group is unconcerned. (I.e., I do know when and when not to alter the newsgroups line, thank you.) >>>From article <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca>, by reggers@uwovax.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton): >>>& It seems that everyone in North America, if not the entire free speaking >>>& world has seen the inappropriate postings by a student by the name of >>>& Alexander Pruss who goes by the handle satan. Many have been rightly >>>& offended and have notified me (as news manager) as well as our postmaster. >>>& In fact the Computing Centre Director has received telephone calls >>>& complaining about this fellow! >>>& >>>& This is to advise everyone that the problem has been brought to our >>>& attention and is/will be dealt with. Rest assured we do not believe that >>>& this kind of behaviour is acceptable and it will not be tolerated. >>>& >>>& Your patience would be appreciated. >>>& >>>& I am, >>>& >>>& News Manager > >Ummm, you have deleted the portion of Mr. Quinton's posting which dealt >with the fact that he is running news unofficially, Everyone is. Usenet news is ad hoc, unofficial; it's a parasite on the internet, which is funded to provide for communication between research interests. It is therefore very tenuous, very fragile, and likely to go poof at any second. So what? You'd stigmatize a poster and all the rest of the posters only to keep your game going? ( I can hear you saying "well, if that's how you feel, then quit reading it." I might. But not until I've spoken freely. ) >and thereby implying >that if some fool goes out of his way to make waves for the people charged >with getting the funds for keeping this project alive, then it just might >get zapped. A situation I find distasteful at least. I do not encourage flatulent posting, nor do I ask that usenet administrators encourage it. I ask only that they consider their duty to provide this forum for all opinions, free of the fear of institutionalized castigation of those opinions. You can go make mud-pies with your talk of privilege; once a medium is controlled, even by those who own it, it is no longer a place for free speech. Cf. the case of Boston's WEEI radio, where the station's news editor and another employee resigned because the owner insisted on coloring the news and on being given a special reporter to do certain stories which the owner would assign and which the news department would not be allowed to edit. Obviously they were forced to resign because of the question of ownership of the resource. Your lawyers may win this argument, but freedom and the integrity of free speech will lose, big. >Further, you neglect the fact that in Ontario this comes on the heals of >a debate amoungst those who allocate University Computing facility budgets >determining whether USENET access should be condoned and financially >supported by the Canadian taxpayer at all. > >It was rumoured to be a close decision last time. Would you prefer to >have backbone after backbone drop off the 'NET? What would that do to >the "rights of the user", whom you purport to defend? What would that >do to "Free Speach"? Eliding the medium will not eliminate the freedom. I can't be the first ever to say that when one person is refused free opinions, the freedoms of the rest are worth nothing. The people left will have nil other than their petty self-interest and the sham of freedoms that only serve as a carrot on a stick in the hands of the manipulative powers of the administration. The news would be better served by being completely dismantled than by being so tyrranized. All or none. >You tend to suggest that the right of this one individual (Mr. Pruss) to >post in his questionable fashion is much more important than the opportunity >of millions of potential 'NET readers to access USENET as it precariously >exists today. Mr. Pruss, and others like him, can be dealt with sufficiently by the scorn of the rest of the posters on the net. He is not the first person to make inane remarks in an offending tone, and he certainly will not be the last. Public censure would serve not only to punish but also to warn, and persons whose ideas are quite sound and possibly valuable may fail to make them known simply because they lack the self-confidence to introduce them into a discussion where a group of people _might_ find them offensive. If Mr. Pruss' comments had in fact made the rest of the net, and possibly the world, decide that satanism and homophobia were the correct course of human existence, would you then expect to see this discussion? No. You would hail him as if he were a messiah. Yet you insist on forcing his silence only because he spoke his mind, or some perverted subset of it. You then cause fear among current and future speakers, and the freedom of speech is beaten to death. And, you do so only in order to protect your own freedom of speech. Such widespread hypocrisy is disheartening. I may yet quit this network of fools. >If Mr. Pruss's actions zapped *your* 'NET access, would >you still speak as you did? I think I make it clear that I would. I think I made it clear long ago that I'm willing to take bullets to speak as I did. My net access is valueless without his. My speaking is meaningless without his. (If I were you, I'd consider not making fun of the "I may not agree with what you say but I'd die to protect your right to say it," cliche, since some of us actually mean it, and have backed that up with military service.) >>Well, to quote one of our greater statesmen, "who the hell do you >>think YOU are." (Okay, so I quote only the Chirelles.) > >I am not he, but I speculate that he may be one instructed that he >may run USENET news as long as there is no adverse publicity. I love it. Qualifications on speaking freely. What crap! >>Content of messages on usenet is a priori not a concern. Delivery >>of them and the nuisance of abuse of the net, however, is. > >Especially when the bill-payers get miffed. Oh. Miffed. Now there's a reason to abridge freedom. They got _miffed_. Or did they? I'm finding here a definite thread of misinterpretation of the value of this situation by those who would encourage censure. >>The fact that Mr. Pruss wants to make satanic statements is irrelevant >>to his access. The meager "offense" that some have felt at his >>opinions, and expressed to you, is nothing when compared to the great >>disservice to free speech and unfettered communication that you commit >>by censoring Mr. Pruss. If he committed some offense directed to harm >>a particular person, or for the purpose of overloading or misusing >>internet resources, then you have call to perform administrative >>policing of his activity. However, he didn't; therefore, you don't. > >Mr. Pruss apparantly (my information is based on the UWO newsadmin's >posting) has performed actions which jeapordize the normal access to >facilities that many currently enjoy. I fully appreciate why action >to mitigate this damage has been taken. "mitigate"..."damage"...like saying that amputating one's head mitigates the damage caused by a nosebleed. I assure you that UWO's _image_ has suffered more from the adverse publicity surrounding their (alleged) restrictions on Mr. Pruss than it ever could by allowing him to post infantile nonsense. Again, the value of this situation is that it is showing what freedom is worth. (You'll note that the UWO admin was ambiguous as to what he did. This, and Mr. Pruss sudden silence, have caused the impression that an account was locked. It is not the case, as I said above, and the misinterpretation thus fostered is not favorable to the image of UWO. This is the reason for my apology. I am, however, not the only person to make this mistake.) >also... > >Mr. Pruss has no more right to access that particular machine without >explicit permission than I have to remove your car from your driveway >and demolish it without *your* explicit permission. You obfuscate. Real damage must be repaired. The fact that several readers find Mr. Pruss offensive does not make it utterly damaging. See above re the damage due to the cure. >The difference is that I don't claim to have a right to do so. Please >investigate the concept of property rights as generally accepted by >most non-communists. Ad hominem and bunk. Politics is irrelevant. The law is derived from the principles, it doesn't define them. >>I must insist that you restore his access and let the thinking people >>who populate this medium decide whether to accept his writings or not. > >Since when is the University of Western Ontario a free public access >site? Perhaps if you feel this strongly you might want to buy him >a box, some software, and pay his phone bill to uunet. I suppose you would have him dragged kicking and screaming from the quad simply because he criticised the university administration and called the Provost a coprophilic pederast, and would do so before determining whether it was true or not, simply because the image of a coprophilic pederast is counter to your contented life. As for purchasing access, he did so by, as I presume he does annually, sending them the check for his tuition money. Again, your lawyers may win this one, but the lawyers don't deal in freedom, only the letters in the law books that they choose to invoke. >>I ask that all who agree insist as well, in writing. > >I respectfully suggest that you are way out of line. Your opinion is noted as inobservant and misguided. >I won't tell you what to do with your property, and perhaps you >may wish to reconsider your demand that others deal with *theirs* as >*you* "insist". Bought a slave lately? I don't have the power to insist, except rhetorically. I only point out the facts so that freedom shall not perish from this earth. --Blair "It's always nice to be given an opportunity to paraphrase Lincoln."