Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!mcnc!thorin!unc!oliver
From: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Soc.feminism
Message-ID: <10679@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 22 Nov 89 16:52:23 GMT
References: <21323@usc.edu> <10657@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <5973@unix.SRI.COM>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 78

In article <5973@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>In article <10657@thorin.cs.unc.edu> oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver) writes:
>>In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>[He doesn't like it that something he posted was rejected]
>>
>>You really have no cause for complaint.  The bottom line is that
>>a moderated news group is a censored group, and the moderators
>>censor as to their whim.  That whim may or may not be accurately
>>described in the group's charter -- it doesn't matter as long as
>>the moderator believes that he or she is doing the right thing.
>
> Precisely because of the likelihood that the moderators would be
>accused of censorhip on political or philosophical grounds, ALL
>articles to soc.feminism are archived, whether they are actually
>approved by a moderator for posting or not. The moderators of
>soc.feminism have bent over backwards to be fair and impartial.
>


You miss my point.  I did not state that the moderators were "fair"
or "unfair," by whatever criteria you decide to use as a judge of
fairness (obviously, Hillel Gazit did not agree with those criteria).
Whether or not you are "fair" has nothing to do with whether or not
you are a censor.  If you reject articles on the basis of content,
or demand that the content be changed to agree with your specifications,
then you are a censor by defintion. 

As Miriam Nadel wrote in her justification of rejecting the
article:

	Hillel wrote a very lengthy article in response to this.  
	In fact, this article was not rejected; rather, a rewrite 
	was requested.  Specifically, I asked him to remove 
	approximately 100 lines of metadiscussion about where
	to have the discussion, speculation about Travis's 
	politics, and general discussion about capitalism.


Thus, the article would be accepted only if unacceptable political
statements were removed and only if the direction of discussion
stayed along approved paths, however defined by the moderator.

Again, I stated that Mr. Gazit has no basis for complaint. I have
no doubt that you believe that you are fair in your decisions as to
what to allow and not allow in your newsgroup.  My only point is that
the question of "fairness" is rather unimportant -- since you define
what is and isn't "fair" by what you censor, then all of your actions 
are by definition "fair."   

As I also stated, I am not opposed to moderated groups, and I do
not oppose soc.feminsm.  If Mr. Gazit does not like how your
group is censored, he is free to post to other groups instead.
However, you should not claim that the group is not censored.
That is hypocrisy.  And if you claim that your group is not censored
on the basis of political statements, then you contradict the
moderator who demanded the changes be made, specifically on the
basis of political statements.   

And you should not claim that I stated that the group is not "fair."  
That is an untruth.  I stated that, as far as Mr. Gazit's complaint 
was concerned, it did not matter whether the group was "fair" or not.
A "fair" censor is no less a censor for being fair, just as a 
"benign" dictator is no less a dictator for being benign.






Bill Oliver  


Not one of the 52% of Americans who believe that warrantless searches
are justified to combat drugs .

[Harper's Index, Dec '89]

(apologies to Ms. Nadel)