Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!motsj1!mcdchg!chinet!rhonda
From: rhonda@chinet.UUCP (Rhonda Scribner)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading
Message-ID: <1853@chinet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 21:36:49 EST
Article-I.D.: chinet.1853
Posted: Tue Nov 17 21:36:49 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 02:57:41 EST
References: <1043@pbhyd.UUCP> <25092COK@PSUVMA> <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP> <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Chinet, Chicago Ill.
Lines: 19
Xref: mnetor news.admin:1389 news.sysadmin:461

In article <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU>, ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes:
In article <6851@ut-ngp.UUCP> kraut@ut-ngp.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) writes:
>>Nothing worse than an anarchist that claims that being offensive is his
>>birthright which society is obligated to tolerate ...
>
>Then, I suppose that Thomas Jefferson and the other authors of the
>Constitution were anarchists.  Offensiveness *is* protected under the
>first amendment.

But harrassment and vicious personal attacks are not.  Being "offensive"
isn't the issue.  Using group taste to regulate other people's behaviors by
calling them "offensive" and prohibiting them IS a danger.  But that isn't
what's under discussion here.  What is under discussion is the behavior of
certain people that have perpetrated vicious personal attacks, harrassment,
and fraud upon other people for their own jollies.  Society is NOT obligated
to tolerate them.  They deserve what they get if their accounts are taken away.
If they come back at you with more of the same for daring to document their
behavior, then they deserve it doubly so.
								--Rhonda