Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!cok From: cok@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin,alt.flame Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading Message-ID: <25092COK@PSUVMA> Date: Fri, 13-Nov-87 20:22:53 EST Article-I.D.: PSUVMA.25092COK Posted: Fri Nov 13 20:22:53 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 16:02:33 EST References: <1043@pbhyd.UUCP> Organization: The Pennsylvania State University - Computation Center Lines: 46 Xref: hoptoad news.admin:1324 news.sysadmin:437 alt.flame:645 mark@pbhyd.UUCP (Mark Crescentini) writes: >In article <25001COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. Clark, K. S. C.) writes: >>I think anyone who's been reading this group for any length of time knows >>that while Eric was on the net I was one of his more vocal opponents. However >>I cannot condone the removal of his accounts because of his postings. >> >>I think that Eric DESERVED to have his accounts removed, but I do not think >>that we had the right to cause them to be removed. [I find interesting that he deleted my next sentence, in which I outright state that the First Amendment has nothing to do with my article. I knew people would choose to assume that I was talking about the First Amendment if I did not include a disclaimer of some sort. However, it seems people chose to assume this even though I did include a disclaimer.] >All of this talk about 1st amendment rights is ridiculous! Eric Mading >lost his privileges to this net because the owner of his local system >(in this case - UWis) did not deem his outrageous postings as productive. > >Let's face it. The majority of the readers of the network are reading >this thru the use of their employers or school's machines. And I would >hazard to guess on their employers time (cute smiley face)! As an employer >would you want Eric Mading spending company resources to post such obvious >drivel?? And intentional posting articles in certain news.groups to >incite flaming? My point had nothing to do with First Amendment rights. I was talking about self-preservation. I am known to have some opinions which some people might consider offensive. Say someone forwarded my articles to a sysadmin who would find my opinions offensive. I could be in trouble. I think that it is a bad idea to set this sort of precedent. I can imagine net.censorship starting in earnest sometime if people get the idea of kicking people they dislike off the net. I have my own detractors on the net. I don't think they would try to have me thrown off the net, but I do not like the idea of self-appointed censors sweeping through my articles looking for offensive statements to forward to the sysadmin at my node. I don't think anyone else should allow this sort of thing, either. ------- BITNET: cok%psuvma@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said |^^^^^^|cok%psuvma.bitnet@psuvax1.uucp cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole |fnord |cok%psuvma@psuvax1.psu.edu cause and condemn you to death.'" |fnord |(and many other foul addresses Lewis Carroll |______|better left unmentioned) The Mad Arab