response 85 of 157:

Feb 7 02:10 UTC 2004

Clearly however, this entire discussion should be completely ignored, since
it was really started by my item, and it is well known that I am a GreX
SYSTEM_ABUSER.  Never mind the core issue.  It's the PEOPLE that matter.

response 89 of 157:

Feb 7 03:05 UTC 2004

That, by the way, is immature.

response 91 of 157:

Feb 7 04:00 UTC 2004

While you may believe you had a valid interpretation of what Grex was, I am
still puzzled as to how you could confuse a *bulletin board system*, which
implies a public posting of information for public consumption, with some
sort of private party line you share for conversations with your friends.

response 93 of 157:

Feb 7 04:35 UTC 2004

 re 90
 > I resent some people insisting that obviously everything needs
 > to stay online forever because otherwise there will be no free speech.

 That was never said.  Please leave it alone.

>  because there's no community here.

Ask yourself what happened.

response 95 of 157:

Feb 7 05:22 UTC 2004

Re #68: Saying "I want people to feel free to say what they want here" 
is "positively Orwellian"?  Huh?  Are you saying that's not what you 
want?  Or are you saying that because I interpret what free speech is 
differently that you do, then I am trying to exert mind control over 
people?

Free speech is *not* as simple as "Anyone can say whatever they want, 
wherever they want, however they want, and it will be preserved 
forever."  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.  You can't paint 
a message on the street and expect it to last forever.  You can't 
make threatening phone calls.

The reason you can't do these things is that we have agreed, as a 
society, to balance the good of the whole against the freedom of the 
individual.  If that's Orwellian, well, tell it to Oliver Wendell 
Holmes.

Mary asks: if we make this exception for jep and valerie, then where 
do we draw the line in the future?  I think it is a very good 
question.  And a hard one.  But just because it's hard doesn't mean we 
can't address it.  And it certainly doesn't mean we *shouldn't* 
address it.  We shouldn't say, "Oh, it's too hard to balance people's 
feelings against our principles of allowing free speech.  Therefore, 
we are forced to not value people's feelings at all, because it's too 
hard."  That's a copout.

cyklone "maintains" a lot of things in #69 - let's see if I can 
address some of them.  He seems to make have a big problem with value 
judgements.  Apparently, he thinks we should all be able to get 
through life without them.  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.

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".

I am saying that we, as a community, ought to be willing to make an 
exception to our general policies when we feel there is a good reason 
for it.  Of course this involves making value judgements.  Of course 
any such system is imperfect.  But, in my opinion, it's better than 
the alternative.

In general, smaller organizatons need less rigid rules than large 
ones.  To take an extreme example, all of us individuals have rules 
for ourselves, but almost everyone violates their rules from time to 
time, and it's not the end of the world.  This is normal and good.  If 
you made yourself a rule about your diet, and then a month later your 
Mom makes your favorite dessert when you're visiting, it would hurt 
her feelings and yours not to eat it.  So you break your rule, and 
nothing tragic happens.  It doesn't mean you will begin binge eating 
every night.  It was better to break it than not to break it.

The same is true for families - they have rules which sometimes get 
broken, and no one dies as a result.  But the bigger an organization 
gets, the harder it is to be flexible about rules.  When you get to the 
size of a large corporation or a government, most people agree that 
you have to have rigid rules, otherwise people will choose to exploit 
them.  Why is that, exactly?  I think it's because, in a very large 
organization, people's attachment and committment to the organization 
is generally weaker than in a small one.  People feel insignificant 
and weak compared to a large organization, and as a result, some of 
them feel little sense of responsibilityand attachment toward it.  

Grex is somewhere in between a family and a large organization.  But 
it's a lot closer to a family.  And I think on Grex we don't have to 
make rigid rules and always be bound by them.  I think there are a lot 
of people who see that as the only way to run any kind of 
organization, and they want Grex to fit into that mold no matter what.  
Some of them, like Jamie, want that so they can manipulate the system.  
Other people just can't imagine anything without a lot of rigid rules.

response 97 of 157:

Feb 7 05:57 UTC 2004

Re #56 (albough)...  So if Grex is to be run loosely, with little explicit
rules, somehow Grex has to have an explicit rule saying so?

response 99 of 157:

Feb 7 13:02 UTC 2004

I don't think of myself as a rule-bound person, Mark.  But I do see being
flexible in this specific area as a place Grex doesn't want to go. 
y

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!

response 103 of 157:

Feb 7 14:41 UTC 2004

SZLIP

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.

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!

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?