Xref: utzoo soc.motss:19680 talk.rumors:3107 news.admin:6732 news.misc:3552
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!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)
Message-ID: <4042@buengc.BU.EDU>
Date: 4 Sep 89 19:39:02 GMT
References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> <188@temvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton)
Followup-To: soc.motss
Organization: Boston Univ. Col. of Eng.
Lines: 47

In article <188@temvax.UUCP> stephen@temvax.UUCP (Stephen C. Arnold) writes:
>
>I have some problems with Blair's concept of freedom of speech.  I believe
>Pruss was acting outside that freedom.  Here is how I see him acting outside
>that freedom.

You need glasses.

>The first is anonymity.  Pruss posted without saying who he was.
>Freedom of speech does not protect a person from having their identity
>associated with their writing.

Wrong in the extreme.  Freedom of speech includes making up names for
yourself to protect yourself from the violence of your opponents.

>Second is harrassment.  Pruss harrassed all of us by saying all of us
>are going to get AIDS, die and go to hell.  Freedom of speech was never
>intended to protect the ability to harrass.

Many of us are going to get AIDS, all of us are going to die, and hell
is moot.  Not even when all three are wished on the same person do they
add up to a reason to limit the speaker's freedom.  Your offense at those
things is not even relevant to the freedom with which he should speak
them.

You are harrassing me by telling me what I may say.  Should you be
censored?

>A person should not be resticted about what he or she says when he or
>she addresses their listeners with the respect do a peer.  Pruss was
>not acting in this way.

Utter garbage.  Feudalism is the reason we don't do feudalism anymore.

Contempt for the thoughts and deeds of others is the thing protected
by freedom to speak in disagreement.  The manner in which the speech
is made is likewise not important.  If you are offended, you may seek
punitive remuneration from Mr. Pruss, but you do not have the right
to silence him.

Further, do you consider yourself Mr. Pruss' peer?  I do not consider
you his peer.  He may be an idiot and a pervert, but he knows how to
exercise basic human rights, and you do not.  This perverse idiot is
miles above you.

				--Blair
				  "No pain, no gain."