Defending Eric Mading
R. W. Clark, K. S. C.
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.
The reason I am opposed to this action is not because it is censorship.
The term "censorship" is irrelevant on the net; the net is pretty much a
privately funded institution; those who control the net control what is
allowed on the net. However, I noticed that the shutup of Eric Mading was
very quiet. We would not even have heard about it if the person responsible
for his removal did not post this to the net. Generally, the alt newsgroups
are known for the freedom of speech in them. I think that if Eric can be
removed for what he says, many of us are also so endangered.
For example, if someone were to forward Russell Turpin's article on "The
despicability of drug cops" to his sysadmin, this sysadmin might find it
offensive and have his account removed. It does certainly SEEM to advocate
cop-killing. I know that it does not in fact condone any such thing, but
preceded by a convincing enough cover letter, this could be portrayed to his
detriment. In fact, many of the articles people have written about
Eric could be construed as offensive. They would not stand up as evidence
in a libel suit, but they would not have to. All they would have to do is
convince a sysadmin that the writer deserved removal for saying such a thing.
We are NOT protected by the First Amendment here. I would be VERY careful in
setting a precedent of this sort. You, or I, could be the next so silenced.
Think about it.
I would appreciate it if someone would email me the address of this sysadmin
at puff. I will forward this article to him.
-------
BITNET: cok%psu...@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said
|^^^^^^|cok%psuvma...@psuvax1.uucp cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole
|fnord |cok%psu...@psuvax1.psu.edu cause and condemn you to death.'"
|fnord |(and many other foul addresses Lewis Carroll
|______|better left unmentioned) The Mad Arab
Mark Crescentini
>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.
>
>BITNET: cok%psu...@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "'I'll be judge, I'll be jury,' said
>|^^^^^^|cok%psuvma...@psuvax1.uucp cunning old Fury; 'I'll try the whole
>|fnord |cok%psu...@psuvax1.psu.edu cause and condemn you to death.'"
>|fnord |(and many other foul addresses Lewis Carroll
>|______|better left unmentioned) The Mad Arab
>
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?
As far as I'm concerned... Good Riddance!
--
============00000000000=============00000000000===========000000000000==========
"In searching for a meaningful embrace, Mark Crescentini
sometimes my self-respect took second place." Pacific Bell (415)823-1549
- Iggy Pop {ihnp4,qantel,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!pbhyd!mark
c...@psuvm.bitnet.uucp
>In article <25001COK@PSUVMA> C...@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 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.
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?
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.
Michael J. Farren
>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.
As one of the people (possibly) who was responsible for causing the
revocation of Eric's account, I feel obligated to respond here. I had
originally intended to keep quiet, but feel that several assertions made
in this article are false. I do not believe that Eric had his accounts
terminated because of (or, at least, not solely because of) his posted
articles. In my case, it was mail that Eric sent me, personally, which
resulted in my sending a letter of strong complaint to his system
administrator. I've been posting to Usenet for several years, and Eric's
mail to me was the single most offensive piece of trash I have EVER
received, one which went far beyond the bounds of civility. And it was
fairly clear from the response I got from puff that I was not the only one
who had received such mail; there was a long list of cc: respondents
attached to the letter I received from Eric's sysadmins.
The other thing I disagree with is the assertion that we (whoever "we"
are) caused Eric's accounts to be removed. I certainly didn't; in fact, I
made it a point to say, in my letter of complaint, that that was NOT what
I was asking for, as I felt that that was totally inappropriate for me to
ask, especially considering past Net history. All that I asked was for
some action to be taken, and left it up to those who knew Eric and knew
more of the situation to determine what action was appropriate. It is not
for me to tell them what to do; neither is it for me to decry what they
did do. I can only assume that they terminated Eric's account because
they felt that it was the appropriate action.
I believe that this is a sad ending to this whole situation, but also
believe that the nature of the situation made a happy ending rather
unlikely, if not impossible. Perhaps, if Eric makes it back to the net,
he will have learned that a little moderation goes a long way.
Personally, I hope that happens, as the one thing that I admired about
Eric Mading was his willingness to fight for his opinions; it's just when
he changed from a fighter, however misguided, to a destroyer, something
had to be done.
--
----------------
Michael J. Farren "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
unisoft!gethen!farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
gethen!far...@lll-winken.arpa Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
Werner Uhrig
> ma...@pbhyd.UUCP (Mark Crescentini) writes:
> >>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.
> 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.
> 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.
it's all very simple: noone has any rights here; we are all at the mercy of
someone else; the sponsor of your account, the owner of your machine, the
machines up/down-stream from your machine. Our society has simple rules:
if you offend the group, you become an outcast - the group will not want to
be associated with you nor support your doings. if you bite the hand that
feeds you, you get your but kicked as far as the one doing the kicking can
remove it.
Your claim that noone should inform your sysadmin about articles you post
from the machine for which he has the responsibility is absurd; he will want
to know if there are articles posted on his machine which are offending
people or which damage the reputation of his machine/site/company ....
you should be smart enough not to post anything that your sysadmin might
agree to finding offensive ...
and if a site is tolerant to a point which might offend the sysadmins of
neighboring sites, guess what: they may decide that they have better ways
to spend their cycles than connecting to your machines.
Nothing worse than an anarchist that claims that being offensive is his
birthright which society is obligated to tolerate ...
Please note that the above remark is not meant to describe any of the authors
of the articles to which I am writing this follow-up; I know them neither
by name nor by contents of articles well enough to have an opinion about them.
R. W. Clark, K. S. C.
>someone else; the sponsor of your account, the owner of your machine, the
>machines up/down-stream from your machine. Our society has simple rules:
>if you offend the group, you become an outcast - the group will not want to
>be associated with you nor support your doings. if you bite the hand that
>feeds you, you get your but kicked as far as the one doing the kicking can
>remove it.
selectively edited them, made them look inflammatory and offensive, and
sent the resulting mess along with complaints about how your posting offended
me to your sysadmin? Or started a "Get kraut off USENET" campaign? Your
posting offended the hell out of me, to tell the truth. I'm sure it offended
others, also, who have used the net responsibly but possibly controversially.
According to you, this is reasonable cause to have you kicked off the net.
Do you like the mess your logic would make of the net?
This "anarchist" doesn't.
-------
cok%psu...@psuvax1.uucp.bitnet "I'd love to, m'lad, but this fine Havana
cok%psuvma...@psuvax1.uucp magic wand is a bit too short to grant
cok%psu...@psuvax1.psu.edu wishes with." Jackeen J. O'Malley
sky...@violet.berkeley.edu
It seems that, whether or not the net is protected by the first amendment,
there ought to be a procedure before someone is censored. I, for one,
would have been perfectly happy if Eric Mading had apologized and then
tried restating his ideas in some less racist way. I think that most
people probably feel the same way. I would hope, therefore, that the
administration at puff (or anywhere else where there is a similar situation)
would first try to talk to him and try to persuade him not to be so
offensive. Considering that Eric Mading admitted that he was being so
offensive to get attention, it might have been very easy to get him to
stop.
That plan assumes, of course, a fair amount of time on the part of the
SA.
-skyler
usenet ucbvax!jade!violet!skyler
arpa sky...@violet.berkeley.edu
Bill.Stewart
of us believe it's a good thing, we've also seen various offensive
people who we wish would not speak so freely. Aside from being
offensive, they risk the existence of the network. There have been
large corporate sites which have lost netnews service because of racist
or sexist postings that were seen by management. The net in general
exists because the people who own the resources (phone bill $$, disk
space,..) value the useful newsgroups, and the goodwill of the users,
enough to tolerate the open quasi-anarchy that we have here. From a
purely selfish standpoint, this net can only survive if it's relatively
civilized.
The net's grown a lot in the six or seven years I've been reading it.
Offensive people have come and gone, all the newsgroups have been
renamed several times, people have predicted the death of the net from
too much traffic (that was back when we averaged 1/2 Meg/day; it's now
about 2 Meg.) It's been able to keep going mainly because a lot of
people have worked hard to keep it alive.
While I'm offended by people like Eric Mading, I'm more offended by
people who want(ed) him evicted from the net. If you don't want to
read his offensive drivel, it's easy to avoid. Those of you with good
news-reader software have KILL files, and the rest of you could either
'n' past his articles or send him hate mail. If you advocate evicting
people from the net, where do you draw the line? While Eric is the
most obnoxious person I've seen in a while, other people have also lost
their privileges; the Brahms Gang were obnoxious but mainly silly;
Tim Maroney's main offense was being a vocal Pagan in the South.
Who's next? Me? (After all, most of my postings are requests for
information; clearly I'm a parasite :-). You? (Isn't posting to
soc.singles or talk.bizarre rather a waste of your company/university's
money? Can you still use the ARPAnet after posting to alt.drugs?)
I would hope that Eric's computer administrators will let him back on;
he's presumably at UMich to get an education, and he can benefit a lot
from the technical groups (if he takes the time to read them), from
exposure to a lot of ideas he's obviously never seen before; maybe
he'll mature some before he gets out into the real world. If not, I've
got a KILL file that's just waiting for him :-).
--
# Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!pt p
br...@looking.uucp
road?"
I guess about half a dozen people have now been "kicked off the net" in one
way or another. Most have been removed by the owners of the machines they
posted from. This Mading fellow is the first I know of to have caused
people on other machines to insert code to delete his articles. (It's been
talked about before, but has it been done?)
One of the net's biggest problems is that it encourages outrageousness.
These net.noise folks who have felt owner wrath would never say in public and
in person what they post to the net.
So my question is, will the history of boot-offs serve as a deterrent?
Will saying to a netnoise, "several people in the past just offended too
many people and they got booted." gain any validity?
In regular society, people don't stand up in crowded rooms of educated
people and yell, "all Jews at ignorant pot smokers." They wouldn't even
think of it, because they know the animosity it would generate. How can
we make this realization come home? How many of you have deliberately spiced
up an article in order to encourage response?
Wait and see. Perhaps the history of those who have been shunned should be
included in the "intro for new users" documents. It's better that people
get a warning.
--
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
da...@geac.uucp
>Are there set policies when and why to pull somebody's account?
>It seems that, whether or not the net is protected by the first amendment,
>there ought to be a procedure before someone is censored.
There might be a good case here for writing up a "nettiquette re
assasination" document for system administrators, and placing a
reference to it in the normal net ettiquete material.
I would propose something of this sort:
-- its you're system to administer
-- we have a long history in this area
-- here's some background
-- kill cautiously!
--
David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its
350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind)
CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
Paul Czarnecki
>Your claim that noone should inform your sysadmin about articles you post
>from the machine for which he has the responsibility is absurd; he will want
>to know if there are articles posted on his machine which are offending
>people or which damage the reputation of his machine/site/company ....
News 2.11 (and possibly earlier versions) has the ability for the news
administrator to monitor all traffic that originates from his site.
In the sys file put:
nsa:net,world,comp,news,sci,rec,misc,soc,talk,mod,na,ne,usa,to,alt:L:mail usenet
Every article that gets posted from your site will be mailed to the
alias usenet. It's that easy folks.
As a news administrator I feel personally responsible (not legally
responsible) for all articles that leave this site. I don't agree
with all of them, and I wouldn't have posted some of them, but I want
all of them to be "good"* articles. I have never had to cancel an
article and I hope never to do so.
If all news administrators did this, then "Dinette Set for Sale in NJ"
articles would disappear.
I don't see a privacy issue since the articles are in a public forum.
grep would also work but not as well.
(This is My Opinion, not necessarily the opinion of Eikonix or Kodak.)
pZ
-----
* good is defined differently for each newsgroup. your milage may vary.
--
Paul Czarnecki -- My newsfeed's in Esperanto
{{harvard,ll-xn}!adelie,{decvax,allegra,talcott}!encore}!munsell!pz
da...@geac.uucp
>Wait and see. Perhaps the history of those who have been shunned should be
>included in the "intro for new users" documents. It's better that people
>get a warning.
>--
>Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
Bravo, Brad!
In the fuzzy future world of net.hypertext, I expect to bang my
mouse button on the person's signature and get various persons'
opinions of them, notably including the compiler's...
--dave (time wounds all heels) c-b
Mikki Barry
>someone else; the sponsor of your account, the owner of your machine, the
>machines up/down-stream from your machine. Our society has simple rules:
>if you offend the group, you become an outcast - the group will not want to
>be associated with you nor support your doings. if you bite the hand that
>feeds you, you get your but kicked as far as the one doing the kicking can
>remove it.
It isn't as simple as you think. If a person, as a result of paying tuition
and signing up for certain classes, receives, as do all persons meeting
those requirements, an account on a computer, which includes posting
privs, they should not be removed because of what they SAY on the net,
especially in a group like alt.flame. However, if the account is a guest
account, in no way linked to tuition, major, or classes taken, and at said
guest account "application", it is made clear that the account is given
solely on the good-will and/or whim of the sysadmin, and that it can be
pulled for ANY reason, it is not protected and can go away at any time.
Unless laws are passed making USENET like television, or newspapers,
and the sysadmins like editors, there is little chance that sysadmins
will be held responsible for articles, no matter how obnoxious.
Then, sysadmins will have to pre-screen each and every article before
being posted. Of course, very few of them have time to do this, AND
to read the laws and know exactly what is and is not allowed, therefore
most will probably just cut their newsfeeds and reduce the risks.
But my main point is that if an individual's account is granted because
s/he has met a certain criteria, and every other person who has met that
criteria has an account and net access, removing that account because of
what a person SAYS is wrong. If, on the other hand, it is granted with
the knowledge that it is subject to deletion at any time, there is no
case possible if the account is then removed.
~r
>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. If you are talking about someone's "rights" on
a computer system, however, you are dealing with something else
altogether. Nobody has yet ruled on that, and frankly, I hope they
never do, as attempting to adhere to the definitions would not be worth
the time of most sysadmins.
Mikki Barry
R. W. Clark, K. S. C.
>responsible) for all articles that leave this site. I don't agree
>with all of them, and I wouldn't have posted some of them, but I want
>all of them to be "good"* articles. I have never had to cancel an
>article and I hope never to do so.
have rather more mature news submitters than those who post from universities.
This would reduce the likelihood of having a poster as absurdly immature as
Eric Mading. However, even if you were to deal with an Eric Mading, the
situations would be somewhat different.
A corporation would likely be held responsible for employee actions upon its
computer systems (you would know much more about this than I). A university
would probably be responsible to a lesser degree. I have heard of cases
in which corporations have been sued for independent employee actions. I have
yet to hear of similar cases in which a university is sued for student actions.
Therefore, you would be justified in keeping tighter controls upon employees
than a university. Censorship would be justified.
I would not think that a university newsadmin would find it necessary to
impose such restrictions.
---
Beyond this, however, I would like to raise a question.
As a newsadmin, what would your procedures be for controlling a poster?
Would you take any action against said individual beyond USENET access?
Please post, or respond in email if you feel this is more appropriate.
lu...@ai.uucp
>included in the "intro for new users" documents. It's better that people
>get a warning.
I'll second this motion. I was not surprised Eric got booted, I think he
deserved it; I am also amused that his account was reinstated.
Rhonda Scribner
In article <68...@ut-ngp.UUCP> kr...@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
Dave Mack
[...]
> As a news administrator I feel personally responsible (not legally
> responsible) for all articles that leave this site. I don't agree
> with all of them, and I wouldn't have posted some of them, but I want
> all of them to be "good"* articles. I have never had to cancel an
> article and I hope never to do so.
As a news administrator I take no responsibility whatsoever for
what users at my site post. It isn't my job to decide what constitutes
a "good" article, to act as a censor or an English teacher. The users
here are adults, not children. If they want to make fools of themselves,
that's their privilege. The only requirement I place on the users is that
every posting contain a disclaimer of responsibility to avoid legal hassles
for the company. (I know, the thickness of the ice here is variable.)
> If all news administrators did this, then "Dinette Set for Sale in NJ"
> articles would disappear.
And FASCIST would be unnecessary in the news software. Do you really
think that all news admins are fair and unbiased enough to make this
desirable? It would be nice to prevent idiotic distributions in misc.forsale,
but not at the cost of eliminating opinions that the news admin disagrees
with.
I don't know about your users, but mine really don't expect the
Spanish Inquisition.
--
Dave Mack The Lord of the Files
McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed
8201 Greensboro Drive are my own and in no way reflect the
McLean, VA 22102 views of McDonnell Douglas or its
(703)883-3911 subsidiaries.
{uunet | sundc | rlgvax | netxcom | decuac}!hadron!inco!mack
8============================================================================)
m...@sq.uucp
> However, I noticed that the shutup of Eric Mading was
> very quiet. We would not even have heard about it if the person responsible
> for his removal did not post this to the net.
Make up your mind!
Mark Brader
Chuq Von Rospach
>> articles would disappear.
>And FASCIST would be unnecessary in the news software. Do you really
>think that all news admins are fair and unbiased enough to make this
>desirable?
This, by the way, is demonstrably untrue. I can think of at least half a
dozen cases in the last couple of years where the idiot involved WAS the
System Administrator. What do you do when the problem is the person in charge?
chuq
---
Chuq "Fixed in 4.0" Von Rospach ch...@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
Mikki Barry
>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.
One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real
world". Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the
same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone,
or hanging around outside their house. You do not HAVE TO read the net.
You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you. Thusfar, Usenet has
had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all
is fair game. There are no rules. There are no guidelines. And as far
as I can tell, at the first sign of a real "test case" the academic
sites and the backbones will pack it in. Who in their right mind wants
to censor each and every article before it goes out because of a
threat of lawsuit hanging over your head?
"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if
we are to keep this an open and public forum. Those wishing to change
it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide
what is and is not acceptable for posting here.
By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident. It
seems that you are talking about something completely different. My remarks
are meant to be taken solely in the context of posting obnoxious material,
not net-fraud, which is something far more serious, but also leaves
little recourse available to the rest of the net.
Mikki Barry
Chuq Von Rospach
>world". Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the
>same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone,
>or hanging around outside their house. You do not HAVE TO read the net.
>You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you.
This is one of the most amusing pieces of bizarre logic I've ever seen.
Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me. But I don't
have to read it, so that's okay.
Someone DOES have the right to make nasty comments about me, but I don't
have to defend myself, so that's okay.
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.
>Thusfar, Usenet has
>had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all
>is fair game. There are no rules. There are no guidelines.
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.
Face it. The prevailing rule of USENET seems to be "it's okay, as long as
I'm doing it to you." We get into this argument every time someone says
"I've had enough" and turns the table back. Ken is just one example. I can
name probably a dozen cases since I've been on the net of someone who simply
got back what they'd given, and had the standard group of yelling screamers
make a case that they were discriminated against. It's bull.
>"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if
>we are to keep this an open and public forum.
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.
It CAN be done. It isn't, on USENET, because it requires thought. Most folks
on the net who do the screaming and yelling are too lazy to work for their
case. They take the lazy way out and attack the person, not the concept.
>By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident.
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.
>Those wishing to change
>it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide
>what is and is not acceptable for posting here.
Face it. Those who are claiming a 'right' to post have no idea what they're
talking about. Unless they own, maintain, and pay for the machine that they
use to attach to the net, they are there are the agreement of those who DO
pay for, maintain, and own that machine. That person is ultimately liable
for what that machine does, and can set whatever standards they feel is
necessary to keep that machine from either being brought into a legal forum
or being made to look bad on the network. There are no rights on the
network, any more than you could claim that you have a 'right' to have your
letter put on the front page of the local newspaper. Unless you OWN the
newspaper, you can't claim any control of its material or content. It don't
exist. Rights exist only in relation to carrying out the responsibilities
they entail -- a fact most of the screamers conveniently forget.
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
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.
chuq (net fascist, ret.)
Super Duper
>> Offensiveness *is* protected under the first amendment.
>But harrassment and vicious personal attacks are not.
I speak here as one who has taken courses at the UW Comp Sci Dept, not
as someone who is privy to the decisions made by those in the dept.
When I took computer classes at the UW (on puff.wisc.edu, no less) *ALL*
users of the machines were *required* to read and sign a double sided page
of RULES governing computer usage before they were given an account.
This covered such things as who can use your account (NO ONE besides
yourself), source code restrictions, machine use (and abuse), game playing,
food/drink in the terminal rooms, problem reporting, and the like.
The bottom line was that the only thing that the department agreed to
provide, and the only thing that you were allowed to use freely, was the
tools needed to do your assignments: an editor, a compiler (+ tools), and a
terminal to access them with. Anything else (games, email, netnews,
networking, and the like) was on an AS IS basis. If the use of one of
these other things interfered with any aspect of computer operations it (or
your privs to use it) could be removed. If you violated the rules badly
enough (disrupting the system, eating in the terminal rooms, letting someone
else use your account, violating source code agreements, copying other's
assignments...) you would loose your account. All this was spelled out
on the rules sheet.
I would assume that since he is a Comp Sci student, Eric agreed *in
writing* to use puff.wisc.edu for the sole purpose of doing his coursework.
It seems that the department decided that his abuse of Usenet exceeded the
allowable threshold of non-coursework use; his access was thus terminated.
Since he should have read what he signed, I don't feel that he has anything
to complain about. Since he doesn't have anything to complain about, why are
you all jumping in to complain for him? Tryouts for the ACLU? :-)
-John
ny...@terminus.uucp
>One thing we are losing sight of here is that the net is not "the real
>world". Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the
>same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone,
>or hanging around outside their house. You do not HAVE TO read the net.
>You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you. Thusfar, Usenet has
>had no "test cases" regarding slander or libel, therefore right now, all
>is fair game.
This is a very bad thing to say... Until somebody stops me, I will
continue to do blank. What people want to do is not fight the test
case, but avoid the test case and watch one's own shop; self
policing to prevent external (legal) policing.
Saying something nasty here *is* the same as saying it on the street;
if I can show damage by what is said here, I can seek recompense
through the legal system. You cannot incorporate yourself to
be above the law.
> There are no rules. There are no guidelines. And as far
>as I can tell, at the first sign of a real "test case" the academic
>sites and the backbones will pack it in. Who in their right mind wants
>to censor each and every article before it goes out because of a
>threat of lawsuit hanging over your head?
Nobody, true.
But if a user at a site shows a consistant tendancy to post potentially
libelous articles, it would (probably) be negligent on the part of
the system administrator if steps were not taken to stop the articles.
Who here wants to fight a suit for contributory negligence?
>"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if
>we are to keep this an open and public forum.
Really? Are we all so immature that we must harrass?
This net can be a stronger net without harrassment and personal attacks.
If there is a clear netwide policy not to tolerate such actions, then
there is a stronger position in court for any potential suit.
> Those wishing to change
>it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide
>what is and is not acceptable for posting here.
I'll happily accept international law concerning slander and libel.
c...@psuvm.bitnet.uucp
>. . . 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.
you'll find I was flaming Eric Mading after practically every thing he posted
to the net. When he posted the "pot smoking Jew" article that got him kicked
off the net, I was in the forefront calling him a bigoted moron. However,
I was the first to defend him when he was kicked off the net.
I see no dichotomy here.
>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
to anything to keep him from saying what he wants. There's a difference.
For example, Mading has the right to spew his bigoted trash onto the net if
he so pleases; however, if he tries to act on any of it by discriminating
against actual people, then I will be the first to toss him into jail.
I've never denied your right to say he doesn't have the right to post, only
denied your right forcibly to shut him up.
I think you're pulling that quote out of your own imagination. I've seen no-
body saying this, in the form you give, or any other form. I don't think
anyone's tried to get you kicked off the net for crowing with glee over Eric's
eviction. And I don't think anyone's said you don't belong on the net, either.
>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.
so don't really see its relevance.
>chuq (net fascist, ret.)
-------
cok%psu...@psuvax1.bitnet "I'd love to, m'lad, but this fine Havana
Rob Horn
>A corporation would likely be held responsible for employee actions upon its
>computer systems (you would know much more about this than I).
More than likely. It is a near certainty. As in one recent example
from New York:
Employee X is embezzling money from employer Y. To conceal this
fact from employer Y, X falsifies income tax returns and bribes
officials. An audit by employer Y discovers these actions. Employer
Y notifies police and IRS, presses charges, pays back taxes. Employer
Y was in turn charged with corporate criminal behavior: falsifying
income tax returns and bribing officials. Employer Y was *convicted*,
and lost all appeals because as the employer they were responsible for
maintaining proper controls over their employee. (The defense
counsel for employer Y still don't understand what really motivated
the DA to press charges.)
Employers can be held responsible for almost everything an employee
does on company time or with company facilities. Usually DA's and
others are reasonable about assigning responsibility, but not always.
--
Rob Horn
UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn
Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA
(Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)
rho...@chinet.uucp
>>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.
>
>world". Saying something nasty about somebody else here is not the
>same as harrassing them on the street, or threatening them by phone,
>or hanging around outside their house. You do not HAVE TO read the net.
You could also say "you do not HAVE TO answer your phone" to legitimize crank
phone callers. I can't accept that, and I doubt that you or anyone else would
either. I say it IS the same, we're talking about a public arena. It has
been a virtual playground for people to play around and do and say whatever
they like. But hasn't it grown far beyond the state where it can continue
to be thought of in that way?
>You do not HAVE TO respond when someone baits you.
You also don't have to respond when someone breathes at you over the phone.
But it IS considred harrassment just the same under the law. The same rules
apply in new environments. Perhaps during the early years of the telephone
when rules were not clarified, people might have been able to get away with
that excuse, saying "it's just the telephone, people don't HAVE to answer it,
if I want to make obscene comments over the phone, who can stop me?" But of
course, that changed. We are now in a state where we can no longer say "this
is JUST the net."
>"Harrassment" and "personal attacks" on the net are a necessary evil if
>we are to keep this an open and public forum. Those wishing to change
>it should decide who they want to have the ultimate authority to decide
>what is and is not acceptable for posting here.
I think we have a clear discernable differentiation between censoring
controversial opinions and censoring people who engage in harrassment and
abuse. I say we should use it, rather than succumbing to those who hide
behind the words "free speech," saying that they're being persecuted for
their controversial opinions when in reality they are being restrained from
engaging in abuses. These things are not a "necessary evil" at all. We
have the means and the capability to deal with them without endangering real
free speech. What we need is the resolve to do so. The absence of that
resolve leads to the impression that people can get away with that sort of
behavior. A viable deterrent, a clear signal that abusers and harrassers
will not be tolerated, is a necessary step in the maturation of the net as
a public forum. Otherwise it is just a schoolyard filled with children,
and as such it cannot survive.
>By the way, Rhonda, *I* was talking about the Eric Madding incident. It
>seems that you are talking about something completely different. My remarks
>are meant to be taken solely in the context of posting obnoxious material,
>not net-fraud, which is something far more serious, but also leaves
>little recourse available to the rest of the net.
I think I made a grave error in saying that the delineation was between
"controversial" and "obnoxious." What I probably should have said was that
the delineation was between "controversial" and "abusive," where abusive
includes the type of persistent deliberate annoying harrassment we have
been talking about. Against the latter, whether the perpetrator is Eric
Mading, "Mark Ethan Smith," or whoever, we DO have recourse, and it needs to
be used.
--Rhonda
kr...@ut-ngp.uucp
> .....
> dozen cases in the last couple of years where the idiot involved WAS the
> System Administrator. What do you do when the problem is the person in charge?
and can't be brought back to his/her senses? In serious cases, you lobby the
sites adjacent to reevaluate if they really think that a news-link
to the offending site is such a good idea ..... if someone offends a
community he becomes an outcast. that's saying "go play somewhere else and with
someone else" - it doesn't mean "you can't play" it means "you can't play with
me or my ball or in my backyard ... "
the complaint that I am the only "free" game in town
will only cause me to remark that "while it may be free for you,
my disk-space, CPU-cycles or phone-bill haven't been free yet ...."
...with the arrival of single-user workstations we'll, probably, see more and
more of that - it's likely to have happened already more than we may think ....
I guess, if we continue this discussion we, probably, should change the
Subject:-header - my remarks, certainly are no longer in any connection to
what Eric Madding may have once said .... as a matter of fact, I'm going to do
that .... it's done, as you can tell by the Subject:-header ...
and the misinformed references to First Amendment rights regarding USENET
are really getting tiring (but I guess this topic will come up again and
again; sigh ...) it's like this: until a court decides differently,
any site can refuse to accept or forward news-articles (or loose them in a
crash :-)) .... because (and I'm willing to claim before any court to be
an expert on this) that is the NATURE of USENET!!! (on the other hand, it is
not likely that a site which becomes known as a "black hole" or a "censors'
hangout" is going to be long on this net ....)
simply because I/you/they purposefully or accidentally fail to broadcast some
articles does not prevent an author to get "published" elsewhere.
(for example, he can pay to post on a commercial net, if they will have him,
or he can buy a machine (and find lots of sites willing to establish a
news-link to it ...) and, directly distribute to anyone who is interested
in being associated with him.
of course, our courts have surprised me sometimes with their wisdom .... :-)
BTW, I am in no way speaking for the site from which I post; I only read
and post here because my machine does not have enough disk-space or the
required news-software .... for all I know, someone/something may decide to
drop all my articles into the bit-bucket ... and what you are reading is only
a result of your telepathic abilities ...
--
wer...@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (prefered address)
kr...@ut-ngp.uucp (if you must)
oob...@mit-eddie.uucp
>You could also say "you do not HAVE TO answer your phone" to legitimize crank
>phone callers. I can't accept that, and I doubt that you or anyone else would
>either. I say it IS the same, we're talking about a public arena. It has
>been a virtual playground for people to play around and do and say whatever
>they like. But hasn't it grown far beyond the state where it can continue
>to be thought of in that way?
Would that a telephone had a KILL file....
Every 6 months or so, the net has yet another case of obnoxiousness to deal
with. And every 6 months, it goes away. Only rarely does an account get
pulled. If you really think that something must be done about the once
in awhile idiot, then the net should enact specific rules regarding actions
to take when someone is a jerk.
But I really think that Eric Madding's tirades do not constitute harrassment.
I believe they were merely obnoxious and in very poor taste. If you believe
Mark Ethan Smith has been harrassing you, then why not bring that up as a
separate issue.
As for "we have recourse", *we* do not. Only the site does. It is up to
them to choose to use it or not.
Mikki Barry
Rick Wayne
like everyone here at uw, eric signed the account agreement to receive
access to puff. his account is alive and well.
eric agreed not to use netnews any more.
if you will study the history of the First Amendment, you'll find cases
establishing that a news channel may refuse to publish anything it wants to
(the Fairness Doctrine is applicable only to the "scarce" publicly owned
electromagnetic spectrum). if eric or anyone else wishes to set up a
computer network to say whatever they please, nobody may stop him/them.
an existing network can refuse to publish. if anyone is interested in the
issue, i'll look up the cases.
as a parenthetical note, i never got any mail from outside the UW system
on issues like this till the mading storm broke; now i've got a bucketful.
tells you something about how far this one went on the spectrum of
offensiveness.
the above posting is my personal view--i'll stand by the facts, but this is
not the University talking.
rick
Roger B.A. Klorese
We are now in a state where we MUST continue to say "this is JUST the net."
If you'd only learn to recognize the difference between a real menace and
the net, the world would be much better off. There are too many scumbags
running around who take life too seriously, who have so little self-respect
that they need to demand "to be treated with dignity and respect" when none
is called for.
Thicken your skin, dweebette, if you intend to go on living in either the
net world OR the real world.
Or better yet, get a life.
--
///==\\ (Your message here...)
/// Roger B.A. Klorese - CELERITY (Northeast Area)
\\\ 40 Speen St. Framingham, MA 01701 USA +1 617 872-1552
\\\==// celtics!ro...@necntc.NEC.COM - necntc!celtics!roger
Paul Czarnecki
I would simply sit down and talk with them.
Maybe because we are a small site it would work. I'd mention that
people in Australia really don't care about the dinnette set that is
for sale, or that you really don't have to manually include your
signature file.
If the person is flaming, I ignore it. It is not for me to decide if
Eikonix (and Kodak) want that. I simply try to prevent posting
mistakes, not thinking "mistakes". If, for example, somebody here
called Ginsberg a "pot smoking jew" I would think them less of a human
being but I would not remove thier account. A disclaimer might be
appropriate here.
pZ
--
Paul Czarnecki -- Spam, spam, spam, Usenet, and spam
Paul Czarnecki
>In article <13...@pinney.munsell.UUCP>, p...@munsell.UUCP (Paul Czarnecki) writes:
>> As a news administrator I feel personally responsible (not legally
>> responsible) for all articles that leave this site. I don't agree
>> with all of them, and I wouldn't have posted some of them, but I want
>> all of them to be "good"* articles. I have never had to cancel an
>> article and I hope never to do so.
>
>As a news administrator I take no responsibility whatsoever for
>what users at my site post.
I think a "bad" article reflects on me. I guess we disagree.
> It isn't my job to decide what constitutes
>a "good" article, to act as a censor or an English teacher.
I think that you have misunderstood me somewhat. (and I realize that
my original posting was unclear) I have never and would never change
the mental content of a posting. The purpose of my monitoring is to
check the mechanical content. I filter double signatures,
inappropriate news group, inappropriate cross posting etc.... What
flies in alt.flame would should not show up in unix-wizards. Most
users who make a mistake are genuinely glad to have been notified.
This prevents the mistake from occurring again. (Now if only
canceling worked conveniently here it would prevent the mistake from
leaving the site altogether.)
The main purpose of my posting was to point out that news
administrators do not have to sit back and wait for people to mail
them "offensive" articles. The sys file lets them watch outgoing
traffic.
>> If all news administrators did this, then "Dinette Set for Sale in NJ"
>> articles would disappear.
>
>And FASCIST would be unnecessary in the news software.
FACIST doesn't prevent the 1st occurrence.
FACIST doesn't help you if you are not aware of the problem. sys file
monitoring can notify you before the article leaves the site.
>Do you really
>think that all news admins are fair and unbiased enough to make this
>desirable?
No, I don't think all news admins are fair. I wish it were the case.
I think I'm fair. I hope I am right. (I think Eric is Fair :-)
I don't that news admin censorship *is* desirable. I think we have a
small communication problem.
> Dave Mack, McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc.
pZ
--
Paul Czarnecki -- Spam, spam, spam, Usenet, and spam
tom hundt
>>phone callers. I can't accept that, and I doubt that you or anyone else would
>
I hear they're going to introduce little devices that display the number of
the person originating the call... presumably, you could have a small computer
hooked to it that looks up the number in a database and turns on a green light
if it's "safe" to pick up the phone, and activates an answering machine if it's
not. :-)
/-^-\ Thomas M. Hundt / BELLCORE Morristown NJ / hu...@bellcore.bellcore.com
| | {seismo|ihnp4|ucbvax|decvax|ulysses|allegra|clyde}!bellcore!hundt
/--_--\