Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!qantel!dual!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: HOW TO DEAL WITH A JERK Message-ID: <1186@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 9-Oct-85 16:29:37 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1186 Posted: Wed Oct 9 16:29:37 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 21:22:06 EDT References: <1170@mhuxt.UUCP> <4410@amdcad.UUCP> <3191@nsc.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 97 From Chuq Von Rospach (nsc!chuqui): >Well, for the record: at one time I DID make an official complaint about >the postings of John Williams. My hope was to get the drivel stopped, and >it (more or less) has. There was NEVER an attempt to get anyone fired, as >phil is negligently claiming. I don't happen to consider it censorship >because censorship implies the inhibition of ideas, and the stuff Williams >was posting at that time was devoid of any. Also, for the record: compared >to the trash being posted by Don Black, John Williams is rather harmless. Many who would censor pornography employ the same logic (that it is devoid of ideas). In any case, it's a curious argument to raise when the subject is the postings of Don Black. The objection to his articles is that the ideas are pernicious, not that there are no ideas there. As for John Williams being "harmless", that's real big of you, Chuq. Mr Williams is a very original and eccentric thinker whose postings have at times been a great contribution. His biggest sin was to be too much unlike everyone else in his postings, which makes him a lonely target for Right Thinking People out to clean up Our Net. >However, those people who DO believe that freedom of speech or press >applies, let me remind you of a little paradox that has shown up. The >general arguement I've seen has been of the form 'he DOES have the write to >post it, just don't read it, and {you or laurie} don't have the right to >suggest company boycotts (or lynching, or whatever...) > >Now think about that. Don has the 'right' to make his postings, and we're >simply to ignore it. Fine, if we choose NOT to ignore it, we also have the >'right' to post our comments as well, with the same proviso that you ignore >those. If you give Don Black the right to post to the net with his racist >comments, you must also give Laurie the right to post to the net denouncing >those racist comments and suggesting economic boycott. If you don't like >it, ignore it, folks. The first amendment isn't context sensitive. It >either works the same for everyone or it doesn't work at all. You can't >just claim protection under it when you consider yourself downtrodden. I'll have to partially agree with Chuq, here. Calling for an economic boycott of DEC in response to Don Black's postings, in the hope of getting those postings stopped, is not censorship. It *is* unfair, however, and a generally despicable suggestion. But, sure, I support Laurie's right to post the suggestion, just as I support the right of Don Black to spout his fantasies, or the right of someone else to suggest a boycott of NSC as revenge on Laurie. >(oh, the wonders of our constitution -- so flexible, to powerful, so easy >to interpret incorrectly when inconvenient. It is too bad most people >forget the responsibilities of the constitution when claiming the >rights...) That's funny, Chuq; I can't seem to recall what responsibilities of private citizens are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution seems mostly to just give a general description of how our government will be organized, along with a few restrictions on kinds of laws the government may not pass. There is, I guess, an implied responsibility for private citizens to defend the Constitution, if we expect to keep it. Oddly enough, those of us who support Black's right to post feel we're doing just that. >In general, then, I stand as follows: > o If you firmly believe Don Black is protected under first amendment, > then Laurie's comments (and everyone else's) are also protected, and > the postings are by definition appropriate. If you don't like it, > folks, ignore it. If you can't ignore it, you'll have to figure out > what to do... I don't see that the first amendment applies, however, > so you're wrong anyway. I don't know if Black's articles are protected under the First Amendment. Computer nets are new, and there are few precedents. If it were up to me, I'd consider them protected; they ought to be. > o If you don't believe that Black is protected under the first > amendment, then Laurie is justified in trying to get someone posting > inappropriate trash off the net. Economic boycott may be a bit strong, > but only if you worry that she carries enough power to pull it off. > Voting with the pocketbook is the age old form of getting your point > across. I don't think the real question is whether Laurie is legally entitled to propose a boycott to "get" Black. I don't know of any laws she's breaking, though I'm not a lawyer, and it occurs to me that DEC might at least have grounds for a lawsuit if they could show economic harm resulting to them from Laurie's proposal. Perhaps a lawyer would care to comment. The real issue, I think, is whether her proposal is *morally* justified, not whether it's legal. Moral questions are, of course, something that each individual must make up their own mind about, but it's clear that some of us (I include myself) find Laurie's suggestion morally repugnant. Whatever the legalities of it, the intent to censor ideas is plain, and the methodology of a shotgun attack on all of DEC exudes an "ends justify the means" mentality. I am not defending Don Black. I am attacking Mrs-Grundyism, the philosophy that others should protect my virtue by keeping harmful influences away from me. - "Choose your enemies carefully, Kenn Barry for you will come to resemble them." - NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry