|
Grex > Coop13 > #106: Understanding the Undulating Undeletion Proposals | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 157 responses total. |
cyklone
|
|
response 101 of 157:
| 
Feb 7 14:40 UTC 2004 |
Well put, Mary.
Aruba, let me see if I can go through your red herrings one by one. First,
as I think I made quite clear, what is Orwellian is your view that in
order to encourage free speech (such as jep's and valerie's), you would
limit free speech for people such as tod and myself. Dance around it all
you want, but that is all you are doing. Dancing around the issue is not
the same as addressing it.
Next, your mention of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not analogous
to the current situation. The "fire" and "fighting words" exceptions were
carved out by the USSC to address situations where specific words or types
of words would lead to *immediate* harmful *actions*. If you do not
believe me, please do your own research and educate yourself. The posts
people made to valerie's and jep's items in no way implicate the concerns
noted by the USSC. It certainly does not mean that limits can be imposed
on free speech simply because someone identifies some competing concern
they believe weighs against free speech. Again, you are misstating the
true state of free speech in our society and in so doing you are doing a
disservice to those who wish to make an informed decision on the
restoration issues.
Mary is not copping out at all, and for you to say so is to resort to the
same sort of name-calling for which I have been criticized. Copping out is
failing to fairly recognize both sides and accepting that sometimes in
order to do what is right we must personally sacrifice something valuable
to us. In this case, what must be sacrificed, at least in this case, is
the idea that if you like someone enough you can waive a core value such
as free speech. There are possible compromises, such as the "crisis" cf I
proposed. The problem is that it doesn't allow jep or valerie to impose
their will on innocent posters on the issues at hand. That is the
sacrifice to be made.
And by the way, it was very insulting of you to suggest that Mary was
saying "Therefore, we are forced to not value people's feelings at all,
because it's too hard." She said no such thing and you owed her an
apology. There are many ways for grex to show it values feelings short of
outright censorship. Asking people to voluntarily remove their posts, or
edit them, is one very good way that has already been done. Cautioning
those who would reveal personal details in public places would be another.
Apparently you feel this is not enough, and that censorship must still be
imposed in order for grex or you to show proper deference to the feelings
of your favored persons.
You also carefully avoid tod's very well-written post about the seamy
underbelly of your viewpoint. By professing to show value for valerie and
jep's feelings by supporting censorship, you minimize the feelings of
those being censored. If you truly valued feelings and a sense of
community, I suggest you exand your focus beyond just your favored
persons list.
Which leads to the issue of value judgments. If you are suggesting I
believe in a value-free grex or in living a value-free life, of course you
are incorrect. As I mentioned, a crisis cf is one way to preserve both the
values of community and free speech. More importantly, though, is that
free speech prinicples, as developed in America and elsewhere, have often
focused like lasers on the issue of "content-based" censorship. In other
words, one of the greatest evils to be avoided is censoring others based
on overt or implied judgments made about the value of the words being
censored. I'm sorry you were unaware of this.
When you say "He is correct that voting against Jamie's proposal and for
jep's involves making a value judgement that the harm done by restoring
the items is greater than the harm done by leaving them deleted" you seem
to see the trees but not the forest. The mere fact you are *making* this
value judgment is what history has taught us to be very wary of. History
is the ultimate arbiter and it should not be left to a small group of
voters. The core premise is that once words are placed into the
marketplace of ideas, those words must rise or fall on their own, without
manipulation or interference. The fact we allow people to remove their own
words in no way means such powers can or should be extended to the words
of those who comment on the words removed.
Putting aside the fact your willingness to make and act on such a value
judgment is antithetical to free speech, you also avoid addressing or even
acknowledging important issues specific to this situation. As tod and I
have mentioned, we poured our hearts and souls into our responses in jep's
items. Those words have intrinsic value regardless of whether or not you
agree or wish to admit it. On the other hand, neither jep or valerie has
shown any specific or intrinsic harm will occur if tod's words and my
words are allowed to remain. So your calculus is apparently "I am making a
value judgement that the harm done by restoring the items, which harm has
not been specified much beyond a general sense of outrage and hurt
feelings, is greater than the harm done by leaving them deleted, even
though said harms from deletion have been clearly and rationally
specified." So even if one accepts your proposal to engage in content
based censorship (which I still oppose, notwithstanding my willingness to
debate this point with you), under *your own system of censorship* you
have failed to make anything resembling a compelling case.
When you speak of making exceptions, it would be helpful if you would
spell out some criteria to consider. Indeed, I made this very observation
and request some two weeks ago and I have yet to see any serious
discussion. So far, you appear to suggest that if someone claims
sufficient outrage or hurt feelings, that would be sufficient grounds for
an exception that would permit censorship. I have argued you should hew
much more closely to the USSC standard of immediate threat of harm. That
is why I offered to contribute to a legal opinion for jep. If I thought
for a moment that *my* words, if allowed to remain, would cause jep legal
problems, then I believe the burden to justify an exception had been met.
So far, though, neither valerie or jep have come forward with anything
remotely close to an immediate threat of harm. Nor do I see them being
able to at any time in the future. Therefore, even if one accepts you view
there should be exceptions, valerie and jep do not qualify.
You say "I am not calling for an "earthshaking change" in Grex's
operation. Nor am I saying people should "have the power to remove any
words anyone else may right (sic) about those deepest fears and thoughts".
But isn't that exactly what you are suggesting? If not, please explain the
distinction you are making between jep and valerie's items and the next
person who comes along and says "I didn't care I was spilling my guts
then, but I do now, and so many people posted that even if I remove my
words, traces of my "guts" will remain in the words of others. So please
censor those words as well." That is the result of your logic, isn't it?
If not, please explain.
To make comparisons between a core value of America, and presumably grex
as well, with adherence to a diet is simply silly. Analogies are only good
when there is some reasonable connection between the two. Your analogy
fails miserably in that department.
I think your comparison between and organization and a family is very
telling. Families do attempt censorship all the time. Keep in mind,
though, that families can be just as unhealthy as organizations. Please
also keep in mind that many (most?) families, almost by definition, do not
involve relationships between equals. That being the case, you are really
on a slippery slope if you think grex should adopt a family model. Of
course, I would submit it already has created a "family" in which some
members are more equal than others and personal favors are done for
favored persons. Oh well, Tod and I always knew Mom liked you best!
|
naftee
|
|
response 102 of 157:
|
Feb 7 14:41 UTC 2004 |
YOU'RE FORGETTING ME!!
re 95
> a message on the street and expect it to last forever.
Please re-read response #93.
You know, it would save a lot of time if you guys actually READ what people
wrote. But then again, the attitude seems to be to DELETE things now, isn't
it?
|
naftee
|
|
response 103 of 157:
|
Feb 7 14:41 UTC 2004 |
SZLIP
|
cyklone
|
|
response 104 of 157:
|
Feb 7 14:47 UTC 2004 |
Re #100: If you are talking about me, I trust you will note I have declined
to accept the bait that has been offered recently ;)
|
mary
|
|
response 105 of 157:
|
Feb 7 14:52 UTC 2004 |
Mark owes me no apologies. I was not at all offended by his
comments. I understand there is room for reasonable people to
disagree about how this should go.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 106 of 157:
|
Feb 7 14:58 UTC 2004 |
Alrighty, then. I retract my statement about the apology owed.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 107 of 157:
|
Feb 7 15:47 UTC 2004 |
Name callers! You're all name callers, and you know it, but you still don't
do anything about it... but call more names! Name callers!
|
aruba
|
|
response 108 of 157:
|
Feb 7 15:48 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone, this is not a court of law. Grex policy is not law. We get to
decide what that policy is, and we get to decide what we want Grex to be.
I'm tired of this "heart and soul" argument. I put a lot of thought and
energy into my posts in jep's items too, you know. I did it because I
wanted to be of help, not out of any sense of self-aggrandizement. So if
John no longer wants those posts online, well, I'm a little sad, but his
stake in the matter is clearly greater than mine. So I bow out.
No one has the reasonable right to expect Grex to keep publishing their
text forever. "Infinite publishing" is not a part of free speech, by any
definition. So no, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the damage done to
posters to the items that were removed. If their text was so important,
they could easily have kept a copy somewhere. And if their goal was
really to help jep or valerie, then the wishes of those people should be
important to them.
So, here we are, voting to decide which course of action is the lesser of
two evils. Like Mary, I think there is room for reasonable people to
disagree.
|
janc
|
|
response 109 of 157:
|
Feb 7 15:51 UTC 2004 |
I'm astonished by the sheer simplicity of Joe Saul's position. The
items were improperly removed, so they must be put back. End of story.
When John's item was deleted by Valerie, I had just started a
discussion with board in which I suggested temporarily deleting John
Perry's item so we could put the question of whether to permanently
delete it to public discussion. A couple board members had said they
thought that was a reasonable idea, and a couple had strongly objected
and many had expressed no opinion. I hadn't yet had a chance to ask
John Perry if he'd be OK with going that route - he might have not
wanted to have the public discussion we've seen he if he had been given
a choice. If he had approved, I'm pretty sure a majority of the board
could have been found to support a temporary deletion. If Valerie had
not preempted the whole thing, we might still be having this same
discussion. I'm wondering what Joe's position would have been then?
I suppose he could have said that the board acted illegally in deleting
John's item, so it needs to be put back. But I doubt if he'd care to
take that position. I imagine in that case he'd be prepared to
consider John's case on whatever merits it may have.
So how does that make sense? Because of some action Valerie took,
John's request cannot be given any consideration? Isn't that something
of an injustice?
|
jp2
|
|
response 110 of 157:
|
Feb 7 15:52 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 111 of 157:
|
Feb 7 15:57 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 112 of 157:
|
Feb 7 16:05 UTC 2004 |
Cyklone and jp2, I was sharing my impressions of what people have said and
implied in these debates. Richard, at the very least, is upset that everything
written on Grex is not going to be preserved. I don't know if anyone else
shares his views, but it certainly seemed to be the thrust of several other
comments.
As for thinking that Grex was a private and somehow cliquish thing, no, I
never thought that, exactly. I knew it was open, and that people could read
it. But I also didn't think of it like USENET -- it's small and not very many
people have even heard of it (I think, of every computer savvy person I've
ever mentioned it to in verbal communication, maybe one has even heard of
it... and that's in Ann Arbor, where it's based.) Of the subset of people who
do use it, what percentage reads the conferences? According to the staff I've
spoken to, not even half. Maybe not even a quarter. That's still quite a lot
of people, true, but I also thought, perhaps mistakenly, that there was a
culture of civility and etiquette around here. That most of the users who did
read and respond in agora understood that people should be treated with
respect and that people's feelings mattered. I left M-net after being fed up
with all of the "fucks" and "shitdicks" and gratuitous insults flung around.
I didn't wish to have a conversation where that kind of thing was common. So
I walked away and found a place where it felt as if there was an understod
respect for the other person. Whether or not I liked or agreed with various
users, at least we could discuss our differences with respect to each other
as people. This has changed in the last several years, and not for the better.
I have always thought that one could argue without descending to personal
insults.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 113 of 157:
|
Feb 7 16:11 UTC 2004 |
To continue, yes, I do think that feelings are more important in some cases
than principle. I'm sorry if that seems wrong to you, but it makes one able
to bend.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 114 of 157:
|
Feb 7 16:33 UTC 2004 |
Re #109: I don't think people who abuse their staff privileges should be
allowed to benefit from doing it. I feel that way especially
where censoring other people's words is concerned.
Keep in mind that I completely agree that both Valerie and John
have the right to remove their own words. I just don't agree that
Valerie has the right to remove other people's just because she
doesn't want people to read what they said about her, or because
John doesn't want people to read what others said about him.
I'd think both items should come back minus John and Valerie's
responses, no matter what the procedure was. Personally, I'd be
willing to scribble my responses in John's item if he asked --
but he should ASK, because they're my responses. I'm still
willing to.
|
naftee
|
|
response 115 of 157:
|
Feb 7 17:09 UTC 2004 |
re 108
> We get to decide what that policy is, and we get to decide what we want Grex
to be.
HMM, this doesn't appear to be what happened when valerie delted the items ON
HER OWN. Once again, you're lying through your teeth.
|
keesan
|
|
response 116 of 157:
|
Feb 7 17:10 UTC 2004 |
Religious people tend to be more adamant than average about everyone having
to follow the rules (no matter how illogical the rules may be). But the
Catholic Church has come up with a way to deal with people who break the rules
- you confess, apologize, promise never to do it again, and maybe contribute
something to the church in exchange. What sort of apology could valerie and
jep make here that would satisfy people? I recall someone a while back
actually asking for financial reparation to grex from jep.
Could he maybe volunteer to take over some of the more tedious staff duties,
such as answering requests for help?
|
naftee
|
|
response 117 of 157:
|
Feb 7 17:23 UTC 2004 |
She could satisfy jep by marrying him.
|
md
|
|
response 118 of 157:
|
Feb 7 17:35 UTC 2004 |
Grex is a private system and the people who run it may be expected to
do favors for their friends from time to time. If you want copies of
some responses of yours in the items valerie and jep started, it's
reasonable to ask for copies of them. But it is not reasonable to
expect your responses to remain on public display until you want them
removed. You can remove them any time you like, but it's unreasonable
to ask the administrators to automatically preserve them in public
view. If valerie or jep had asked me beforehand for my consent to
delete their items, I'd've said: Yeah, sure. So they didn't ask me,
they just did it. So valerie hates to be parodied. So what??
Jamie's "This is a deliberate censorship designed to frighten those who
are not in Grex's upper class into silence" is drama queen idiocy.
Talk about estrogen poisoning. In the first place, nobody
is "frightened," nor was that ever the intent. In the second place,
Grex has nothing resembling an "upper class," or if it does, the
definition depends on whomever you're talking to. (Ask me, and I'll
say it's obviously me.)
Anyway, I vote not to restore the items publicly in any form.
|
boltwitz
|
|
response 119 of 157:
|
Feb 7 17:51 UTC 2004 |
I am frightened.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 120 of 157:
|
Feb 7 17:59 UTC 2004 |
Re #108: You say
"I'm tired of this "heart and soul" argument. I put a lot of thought and
energy into my posts in jep's items too, you know. I did it because I
wanted to be of help, not out of any sense of self-aggrandizement. So if
John no longer wants those posts online, well, I'm a little sad, but his
stake in the matter is clearly greater than mine. So I bow out.
No one has the reasonable right to expect Grex to keep publishing their
text forever. "Infinite publishing" is not a part of free speech, by any
definition. So no, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the damage done to
posters to the items that were removed. If their text was so important,
they could easily have kept a copy somewhere. And if their goal was
really to help jep or valerie, then the wishes of those people should be
important to them."
I'm not sure if your are missing the point I am trying to make or
deliberately avoiding it. Do you even remember the points I tried to make
in earlier posts? When I keep saying most posts have intrinsic value, I
do *not* mean only to the author. You keep ignoring my point about the
possible value to a third party. If the next person in jep's position is
also helped, and that person is even a step closer to crossing the line
jep almost crossed, then allowing those words to remain *far* outweigh any
speculative benefit to jep from deletion. The "heart and soul" put into
those words was to provide a benefit you would deny via censorship in
order to do a personal favor for a favored person. What is even more
amazing is that JEP HIMSELF wished such an item existed. So you (and jep)
seem to be ignoring the fact that jep has essentially made one of the most
compelling arguments *against* censorship. The goal here, which you
consistently mistate, is permit words to have their maximum effect and
value for *everyone* by not censoring them.
|
keesan
|
|
response 121 of 157:
|
Feb 7 18:38 UTC 2004 |
I wonder if jep would have gone back through old agoras hunting for such
items.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 122 of 157:
|
Feb 7 19:23 UTC 2004 |
Well, as I said earlier in this discussion, all it would take would be one
post in agora or a conversation in party for someone to say "oh, btw, you
might want to check out item X. You might find it interesting." Certainly of
such an item had been in existence when jep began his one of us would have
mentioned it to him.
|
jp2
|
|
response 123 of 157:
|
Feb 7 19:37 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 124 of 157:
|
Feb 7 21:38 UTC 2004 |
Childish behaviour from children is of course to be expected.
|
md
|
|
response 125 of 157:
|
Feb 7 22:55 UTC 2004 |
123: Not the same thing. Not even close. You're still a drama queen,
albeit small-time by mnet & grex standards.
|