Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site osu-dbs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!osu-dbs!karl From: karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: On unc!tim: You don't *know* that! Message-ID: <600@osu-dbs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-May-84 07:52:32 EDT Article-I.D.: osu-dbs.600 Posted: Mon May 21 07:52:32 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 22-May-84 08:13:15 EDT Organization: Ohio State U., CIS Dept., Columbus Lines: 164 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