Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site daisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!nsc!daisy!david
From: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Inappropriate net behavior (Re: Perlman)  {MEDIUM LENGTH}
Message-ID: <47@daisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 23:52:03 EST
Article-I.D.: daisy.47
Posted: Tue Feb 19 23:52:03 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 09:21:51 EST
References: <2346@nsc.UUCP> <799@sdcsla.UUCP>
Reply-To: david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter)
Distribution: net
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp., Mountain View, Ca
Lines: 45
Summary: 

In article <799@sdcsla.UUCP> norman@sdcsla.UUCP (Donald A. Norman) writes:
(in reference to Mr. Perlman's claim of persecution by private mail):
>THe only parallel I can think of comes from those who physically attack and
>abuse the homes of people whose public policies they disapprove of.  
>
>I find it appalling.  I would be tempted to take legal action against the
>culprits.  The net -- and normal life -- can only survive if we practice
>tolerance against one another.  Personal attacks and verbal abuse simply should
>play no role in the kinds of discussions we have on the net.  
>
"Legal action"?  Did Mr. Perlman claim to have received threats?  Were there
libelous attacks against him which were communicated to a third party?  If not,
I suspect the First Amendment will take a dim view of "legal action."  Don't
get me wrong: I rather agree with your sentiment but, like some others in the
discussion regarding headhunter advertisments in net.jobs, I believe the
First Amendment to be one of the most important parts of the Constitution.
(That's why I'm just a little queasy about Stargate.  But that's the subject
of another diatribe.)  I too believe that verbal abuse is a Bad Thing but
censorship is much much worse.

To generalize (actually, to spiral out to another subject), it seems that
a number of net discussions involve and are frequently centered on the
question of censorship, in one form or another.  When I was in school
(an Ivy League, one of the best examples of American scholarship, American
values, et. al., ad nauseum), I tried to put up posters on the bulletin
boards in my dormitory.  These posters advertised a dance sponsored by a
group that many would consider laughably middle-class.  The posters were
ripped down repeatedly by fellow students who did not like the sponsoring
group.  (I "won" by using Scotch-brand permanent spray adhesive.  It's like
"Spray-Mount" [A tradename of the 3-M Corporation] but permanent.  Boy were
they upset with me!  Heh heh heh.  The posters are still there, three years
later.  Heh heh heh.)  These students seemed to forget the concept of a
"University" as a community of scholars and a community of ideas, freely
expressed, to the betterment of all.  Thus was I tought the importance of
censorship.

Almost everyone can find some idea, some outlook, some philosphy with which
he or she violently disagrees.  The temptation is always strong to use the
force of numbers (majority rule) to say "We are sorry but what you are saying
is dangerous and therefore we will not let you say it.  We will use our guns
and swords and stones to prevent your voice from being heard."  This is a Bad
Thing.  One purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the minority from
the majority.  

The First Amendment must apply to everyone or it applies to no one.