Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!styx!mcb
From: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Abuses of the net
Message-ID: <21030@styx.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Nov-86 14:11:22 EST
Article-I.D.: styx.21030
Posted: Fri Nov 21 14:11:22 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 20:34:47 EST
References: <225@mind.UUCP> <21023@styx.UUCP> <228@mind.UUCP>
Reply-To: mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore CA
Lines: 66

In article <228@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes:
> In article <21023@styx.UUCP>, mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) responds
> to a sample of scatalogical remarks I had excerpted from a reply I
> received in sci.lang as follows:
> 
> > I then noticed that the
> > person to whom the the quoted remarks were directed were in fact Mr.
> > Harnad himself, who seemed to be getting the worse of the argument.
>  
> Mr Berch should read that posting again, if he has the stomach for it.
> He will notice that the worst of it is directed at some other poor
> unfortunate rather than myself. Not that it makes any difference.

Indeed, but you seem to be fixated on the "scatology" of the remarks,
rather than their content or rhetorical stance. You also apparently
failed to notice (again) that at least part of what you object to was
example material dealing with the subject matter (sexism in language).

I found the original article interesting and challenging. (I don't
know rathamnn@brahms, by the way, so it's not a matter of personal
defense.) I had no trouble "stomach"ing it at all. I don't necessarily
agree with all that he says, but that's irrelevant.

Why do you think the proper level of discourse on Usenet should be the
common denominator that offends no one? This is a highly pluralistic
internetwork, with (based on Brian Reid's measurement programs) over a
hundred thousand participants. A fair percentage of the material is
going to offend SOMEONE, whether because of four-letter words,
or scatology, or controversial political/religious/cultural views.
Should all these be supressed as well?

It is a very large leap from "I don't like what rathmann@brahms wrote;
it offended me, and I will therefore not read such material" to
"rathmann@brahms must be a disturbed individual; how did he get an
account at Berkeley? All this abusive material must be suppressed."
The former seems quite reasonable. The latter is ridiculous.

> [...]  As I suggested in a prior reply, I
> am not a vigilante or a prude or a spokeseman for the Moral Majority.

Fine. Then the proper thing to do is hit the 'n' key, or create an rn
KILL file. You may decide for yourself what you like to read. If you
are a Usenet site administrator, you may decide (under whatever limitations
your institution may prescribe) what newsgroups to accept and feed,
and what your users may have access to and post. But you DON'T
have the right to dictate to the community at large what the proper
level of taste and inoffensiveness should be in order to meet your
personal standards. That, sir, is what the Moral Majority tries to do.

> I think it's common sense that posting such material shouldn't be
> free of consequences, any more than publishing it in a newspaper or
> displaying it with a sky-writer would be. 

What sort of consequences do you mean? If you have been defamed, by
all means sue for libel. Or try the obscenity statutes of your
jurisdiction. Given the substance of the article involved, you are not
likely to get far in either case. I don't know what newspapers you read, 
but there are many in which rathmann@brahms's article would be considered 
bland by comparison., and publish quite nicely "without consequences".

If you can't stand the heat, by all means stay out of the kitchen.

Michael C. Berch
Newws/mail co-administrator, styx
ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa
UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb   ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb  ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb