Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ooblick
From: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Defending Eric Mading
Message-ID: <7460@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 21-Nov-87 11:10:22 EST
Article-I.D.: eddie.7460
Posted: Sat Nov 21 11:10:22 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Nov-87 03:36:47 EST
References: <7427@eddie.MIT.EDU> <1853@chinet.UUCP> <7439@eddie.MIT.EDU> <34296@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 94

In article <34296@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:

>This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen. 

Oh dear.  You said something nasty about me.  I should write your sysadmin
and have your account pulled :-|

>Huh? The net is very much a part of the real world. Last I heard, it was
>populated with real people with real lives and real feelings, and the laws
>and societal restrictions that go along with those people are just as real
>here.  The fact that some of the more obscure legal items haven't been
>argued out in court yet doesn't preclude that common sense and a decency
>towards your fellow person don't apply.

Common decency has not been legislated.  It is not mandatory, here nor
anywhere else.  My point is that I do not agree with removing someone's
account because you disagree with them. Or even because they name-call
in alt.flame.

>Bullhockey. I may not be a Christian, but "Do unto Others as you would have
>yourself be done to" seems like a wonderful concept to me. And I notice with
>some amusement that the folks who are the most abusive on the network tend
>to be the loudest screamers when the abuser becomes an abusee. And what's
>even funnier, someone like Ken Arndt can make some of the most racist,
>abusive and purely NASTY comments you can think of (to chose one old,
>hopefully left behind us example) and the second someone calls him on them,
>everyone runs out and defends the bastard. Where were these folks when he
>was doing the abusing? Not defending anyone then. 

Yes, you are right.  Many of those who scream the loudest about free
speech on the net will attempt to have other's accounts removed.  I have
seen it happen many times, and feel it is the height of hypocrisy.  I am
just very concerned that people's accounts will be deleted because of
controversial postings.  The "chilling effect" on the right to say what
one wishes would be severely limited on Usenet if sysadmins had to read
everyone's postings and decide what should and should not be posted.

>Baloney. It's perfectly possible to have an open and public forum that
>doesn't remind you of a kindergarten or a sewer. Personal attacks are the
>last forum of those who either don't have any facts to back their case or
>don't know how to do them. If you don't believe me, go and do formal debate
>for a couple of years. Those folks can be downright hostile and never
>mention the other party -- because if you do, you lose. 

I did do formal debating, and I know the rules.  However, do you really
think that those same rules can apply to Usenet with its many and varied
talk, soc and alt groups?  There has ALWAYS been flaming on Usenet, and
there always will be.  Right now there are NO RULES.  If you want to sit
down with others here and create rules that are agreed to by everyone
who posts here, with the consequences for violation being loss of access,
then go right ahead.  Then there will be some clear cut reasons for pulling
accounts, and controversey should not be one of them.

>So am I. And all the others that Eric represents -- he's just the latest in
>a series of nasty people who got hoisted by his own petard. He has no more
>right to foist his anger and obnoxiousness on us than we have painting
>swastika's on our neighbor's barn. 

Damaging property is quite different from using one's First Amendment rights.
The legal view has always been that as long as there is no rule against it,
it is legal UNTIL such a rule is made against it.  Since it has not been
decided whether libel laws apply here, and since the Usenet has not come up
with its own rules for governing itself, arbitrary yanking of accounts is
something I feel is wrong.  Yanking accounts for violation of clear rules
by either the site or the Usenet itself is different.  Yanking guest accounts
is always fair game if it is spelled out up front that this can happen for
any reason.  Giving a priviledge to a class of people, then taking it away
from one whose ideas you don't like is inviting trouble, unless the rules
are specifically spelled out.

>Oh, and while I'm at it, let me make my normal snotty comment for a
>situation like this. It shows up the mindset of the people involved.
>Inevitably, when something like this occurs, the following statement is made
>at one point or another in some form:
>
>	He has the right to say anything he wants, and you don't have
>	the right to say he doesn't

Maybe you should have said *some* of the people involved.  Nobody has said
that those for pulling Eric's account do not have the right to say that.
Your attempt to put my point of view in simplistic terms has distorted it.
Of course, the University of Wisconsin can do what the hell it likes.  But
remember, it gave the account back.  It thought that Eric's First Amendment
rights were violated.  If you disagree, more power to you.  I happen to
agree with them in this specific case.

>This one always makes me laugh. If you don't see the problem with this
>statement, I suggest you study it carefully. You're PART of the problem, not
>the cure.

If you are speaking of the problem of being nasty on the net, look in the
mirror.  Seems you are part of the same problem.

Mikki Barry