Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!bellcore!buzz!nrh
From: nrh@buzz.bellcore.com (Nat Howard)
Newsgroups: soc.women,news.admin
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no Batwoman
Message-ID: <2242@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: Fri, 28-Aug-87 12:29:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: bellcore.2242
Posted: Fri Aug 28 12:29:14 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 01:19:42 EDT
References: <2073@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <0@novax.nowhere.nodom>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: nrh@bellcore.bellcore.com (Nat Howard)
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Morristown NJ
Lines: 84
Keywords: censorship silencing
Xref: mnetor soc.women:6703 news.admin:934

by the owner of the port -- not the net as a whole.

>That's what people are objecting to.  Not the "Cheryl shut up" part.
>That is nothing new.

Untrue -- I've posted copies of examples below.  
The horribly tempting thing about censorship is that it's always
possible to find someone sleazy enough to inspire the desire for
it.

The calls for censorship predate the idea that it was an nntp
port being abused, by the way.

By the way, at one point Valerie leaves it up to the net.gods
to decide what punishment is appropriate.  I think Greg has spoken
well on this: let's flame Mr. Nobody into the ground!

Would the folks who advocate censoring Mr. Nobody
also advocate censoring Abbie Hoffman for writing "Steal This Book"?
As I understand it, the book describes how to make bombs, but
I've never read the book, so I don't know first-hand.  Debate
on this issue should go in talk.politics.misc.

]Message-ID: <6138@sri-unix.ARPA>
]Date: 25 Aug 87 22:44:41 GMT
]Reply-To: maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak)
]
]It's not that Mr. Nobody's article was OFFENSIVE; I can deal with
]and even appreciate offensive.
]
]No, it's that it was cowardly (anonymous) terrorism, ENCOURAGING and
]FACILITATING, not merely advocating, action that could cripple the
]net. By posting that command line, Mr. Nobody made it possible for a
]lot of people to be a lot closer to silencing anyone on the net they
]don't agree with. I call that terrorism, and I say it has to be 
]CONDEMNED and punished.
]
]Hear what I'm saying? It's a long way from saying "someone shut
]Cheryl's mouth" to showing them how they can do it. It crosses the
]line.

Certainly the objection to anonymity is clear, but it is given
two words and a pair of parenthesis -- much more is done with 
the evil command line.

Want another example?

]>From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
]Summary: Make my day, Mr. Nobody
]Message-ID: <1442@epimass.EPI.COM>
]Date: 25 Aug 87 07:02:13 GMT
]...
][Mr. Nobody] did more than express an
]opinion; he gave specific instructions for a form of net sabotage.
]As a backbone admin, Greg, I think you should be more pissed off
]about this than you seem to be.  Especially when you stop to think
]that a different name could be used instead.  Instead, you equate
]his offensiveness with that of Cheryl.

Oh, and how about:

]>From: maslak@sri-unix.ARPA (Valerie Maslak)
]Message-ID: <6077@sri-unix.ARPA>
]Date: 24 Aug 87 21:22:23 GMT
]
]Thanks jj for not letting this one slide by. I for one think
]that disciplinary action should be taken against whoever
]posted the article suggesting sabotage against Cheryl.
]We don't need net terrorism, and I think shutting off Mr. Nobody
]would be a good object lesson to others.

Note that in the one above (one of the earliest) no particular issue
is made of the anonymity of the note -- it is clearly a reaction
to the attempt at shutting down Cheryl.  It is also a call for
censorship: "shutting off" Mr. Nobody.

Oh well, I am now bored with this issue -- see you later...