response 260 of 357:

Jan 23 22:15 UTC 2004

Re #257: "Evidence Tampering:  destroying records that have not been
requested is not a crime, last I heard.  We are always free to destroy our
own coments, and jep's are the only ones that really provide any
'evidence' of wrong-doing." 

Great. So now you ADMIT that removing jep's words removes the harm to him.
In that case, what is your basis for deleting the words of others?

My dictionary defines censorship as the act of removing things that are
objectionable. Jep apparently feels that at least some of the posts in his
item were objectionable, on the grounds his son might become aware of
them. Care to try again?

"Free Speech:  Words were written.  These words had their desired effect,
or as much of it as possible, at the time.  That's free speech.  Removing
the words later does not diminish their original, and intended, effect." 

Now you are really stretching. Words only have effect for as long as they
are there to be seen and heard. No one posted with any intent of an
expiration date being applied. I intended my words to have an effect for
all who read them, WHENEVER THEY READ THEM. Deleting them prevents this
and my words *are* diminished. 

Your argument about who owns the words is utterly specious. Point me to a
single written policy or even a staff decision that implies a person on
grex does not "own" his words. Your failure to do so will show your
argument has no merit whatsoever. Indeed, the vote to allow permanent
scribbling shows a recent affirmation by grex to allow the poster ultimate
control over his or her words.

To those who think I am "awfulizing" by saying deletions undermine grex's
professed dedication to free and uncensored speech, I would simply note
the obvious: when you are perceived as hypocrites who toss away your
professed values to do personal favors for favored persons, then your
reputation is damaged. What I am picking up from some posters is that you
care more about your "feel-good" reputation rather than any principled
commitment to free and uncensored speech and having a reputation for
supporting same. Fine, ya'll have to live with yourselves. Just don't
presnt a different face to the ACLU next time it needs a plaintiff.

Finally, the argument that restoration is not "feasible" if many people
delete their posts volunatorily begs a number of questions. How do you
know this? Does your crystal ball tell you that Joe Divorce Candidate will
come looking for the item jep wished was here at the beginning of his
divorce and will get NOTHING AT ALL out of what remains? Do you even know
for sure what will remain? 

The theory of the marketplace of ideas suggests that indviduals must
decide for themselves what words have value and which do not. Yet you now
claim to make that decision for people you don't know and haven't even
met. How very paternalistic of you. BTW, that attitude backs you right
into proving my claim of censorship, since you are now deciding that "Item
A minus X% of content" is not worthy of disemmination.  You are now
appointing yourselves de facto editors and making decisions on content
that others should be free to make themselves by reading or not reading
what posts remain. How very Big Brotherish of you.