response 60 of 157:

Feb 6 23:47 UTC 2004

My issue with leaving the items deleted is that Valerie didn't have the
authority to delete them, so what she did should be undone. 

I'm fine with leaving Valerie's and John's posts deleted, because they did
have the right to remove their own material.

Yes, I know both of them have argued that there would be a lot more interest
in the items now, and people could infer things from others' posts -- but
that's life.  People could start posting about the contents of those items
in depth now, if they wanted to.  They could probably reconstruct some of the
more embarrassing stuff, maybe not verbatim, but close enough to make both
Valerie and John very uncomfortable.  So?

It shouldn't have happened, so fix it.  Simple.

response 62 of 157:

Feb 6 23:57 UTC 2004

Gull is exactly correct that insisting that Grex must keep publishing
things like John's divorce item against his wishes will have a chilling
effect on free speech here.  cyklone tried to weasel out of that by saying
that "chilling" has a specific legal meaning, yadda yadda yadda.  I think
it's a very good description of the situation.

Free speech is not as simple a concept as cyklone would have us believe. 
I, for one, think that John's divorce items were one of the best uses of
Grex *ever*.  During the time they were active, I was proud that I had
helped keep Grex running so that it could be available to John when he
needed it. 

It should be very clear to everyone by now that John badly wants those items
offline.  It seems likely that other people in John's position might feel
the same way; not everyone, but John is far from an abberation.  It
follows, then, that if we decide John's items must be put back online to
satisfy someone's notion of free speech, those people will be discouraged
from ever seeking help on Grex in the way John did.  THey will think,
"Well, if I ask for help, then I have to give Grex permission to publish
the answers forever.  I don't know what the answers may be, I don't know
how personal they'll be, I don't know how hurtful they'll be.  And they
will be easily available to the whole world *forever*.  I think I'll
pass."

That kind of self-censorship is the clear result of voting to put jep's
items back online.  It might mean that no one would ever again use Grex to
get help the way John did.  You can talk all you want about who has the
right to delete whose text, but those are the consequences, and we'll have
to live with them.

Maybe cyklone really believes that kind of censorship would be good for
Grex.  I don't.  The slogan on our homepage says "A public service
promoting free speech".  I want people to feel free to say what they want
here.

response 64 of 157:

Feb 7 00:44 UTC 2004

And, come one, with the always-available newuser and unauthenticated pseudo
account instant creation, if someone wants to discuss such a delicate topic,
they can do so via a pseudo.  That's not a panacea, maybe, but the histrionics
of "we *must* restore the items at all costs" are being matched by the
histrionics of "chilling effect" (cue wringing of hands).

response 66 of 157:

Feb 7 00:48 UTC 2004

I'm wondering where the limits will be drawn.  In being sympathetic to
John and Valerie's requests to have everyone's responses deleted you are
indeed saying Grex is now sensitive to such concerns and we will allow
users to censor other users.  And if we don't agree to the next request
and someone loses a job or a wife because of published comments?  Is Grex
then liable?  I mean, we were sensitive sometimes but not always.  So
maybe we need to always comply with all such requests?  Who will decide? 

I suggest we leave this in the hands of those entering the text.  If you
publish it, you can delete it, but there is no controlling what happened
while it was readable. And our policy must be clear and consistent: You
are under no obligation to publish on Grex, so do so at your own risk,
knowing you don't control what others may say in response.

If that means we don't see a few personal discussion, such as Jep's item,
that's the trade off.  I don't think Grex can be all things to all users. 
  
I see a potential chilling effect from *allowing* users to censor other
users.  Like, why bother getting involved in any in-depth or heartfelt
discussions - they may be gone tomorrow if someone is uncomfortable with
what you said.

response 68 of 157:

Feb 7 00:56 UTC 2004

Re #62: You say "free speech is not that simple." Actually, it is. In fact
it is one of the core principles on which our country was founded and one
of the few areas in which you will find a substantial number of so-called
liberals and conservatives in agreement. I stand by my distinction
regarding gull's improper use of the phrase "chilling." The mere fact that
a person may reply to the words of another is not "chilling" under any
commonly accepted use of the word in American free speech theory. Indeed,
the ability to freely reply to the words of another, without fear of
censorship, is the hallmark of "unchilled" speech.

In any case, if you want to avoid the effect about which you complain,
then form a "crisis" cf and post clear rules that an entire item can be
deleted by the author. See how simple that was? 

I maintain once again that jep and valerie had no reasonable expectation
to have that power over their items. I maintain that with no such
expectations, when contrasted with the expectations that other users had
control over their words, you are doing great violence to grex's professed
support of free and uncensored speech. I maintain that their claims of
harm are speculative and they have failed to come forward with anything
remotely resembling proof. I certainly maintain that if you accept their
claims on such a basis, rationally you have no basis to discount the
claims anyone else has made as to the harm suffered if *THEIR OWN WORDS
ARE DELETED.*

I maintain that in pleasing two people you are offending many more. I
maintain that you have presented no discernable basis for favoring the two
over the many that does not involve your making a value judgment you
expect others to share, ie, that the words of *others* have more meaning
and impact on valerie and jep than they do for *the others who actually
wrote them*! I maintain that if you are serious about what you just posted
(and do not intend to implement my crisis cf) then you are calling for an
earthshaking change in the operation, structure and principles of grex,
for you are advocating that in order for people to feel free to post their
deepest thoughts and fears they must also have the power to remove any
words anyone else may right about those deepest fears and thoughts. And I
maintain that if you deny that is the outcome of what you say in #62 then
you are merely trying to find yet another justification for doing a
personal favor for a favored person. 

If you disagree I will look forward to your explaining the distinction you
are trying to make. Please try to be as clear as possible. As jp correctly
implies, your last sentence is positively Orwellian.

"In order to make speech more free, we had to make it less free."

response 70 of 157:

Feb 7 00:59 UTC 2004

(And mary is right, too. :)

response 72 of 157:

Feb 7 01:07 UTC 2004

Re #69: Did it occur to you (and this question also goes out to those who
agree with you) that all this is ultimately going to do is result in more
of the very posting/copying that was originally claimed to be the big fear
of valerie and jep?

I've got news for the "censors": This issue has been debated for thousands
of years by minds far greater than ours. The one solution that has stood
the test of time in terms of the evolution of the race is free and
uncensored speech, with everyone responsible for their own words. You are
on the wrong side of history. 

response 74 of 157:

Feb 7 01:09 UTC 2004

<s'all right. You snuck in just the right spot to say much of what I was
saying>

response 76 of 157:

Feb 7 01:12 UTC 2004

Very well put tod. I certainly *thought* I was part of the community when I
was posting to jep's item. But here on the animal farm, some members of the
community are more equal than others.

response 78 of 157:

Feb 7 01:17 UTC 2004

In #69 you say "So what if my advice is gone tomorrow?  I'm not writing
for generations to come.  I'm writing today, for the use of a particular
person who is in a particular situation.  If I want to ensure that my
profound thinking is available in perpetuity, Grex items are a pretty weak
way to do it.

You are making yet another value judgment to justify censorship. 
Reasonable minds can disagree as who they are writing for and for how
long. You may think grex is a weak way to perpetuate "profound thinking" 
but some of us who were writing about the problems of a grexer and for a
grexer (as well as for other users of grex) obviously believe grex is one
of the *MOST* appropriate place for our words to reside. 

response 80 of 157:

Feb 7 01:30 UTC 2004

I have lots of doubt about that, tod.

response 82 of 157:

Feb 7 01:43 UTC 2004

It's time to shut up, jp2.  

Really and truly.

response 84 of 157:

Feb 7 01:48 UTC 2004

I *know* the motions are not about the words of jep and valerie; they are
about the words of others added to the items created by jep and valerie.
I've been very clear that I think item authors have the right, and should
have the capability, to remove the items they create, in toto, explicitly
including words others have written.

However, I've also been convinced such was not the situation on grex at
the time valerie deleted the items.  I've also been convinced to entertain
the notion that such should never be the situation on grex.

This discussion will inform future decisions people make, about their
votes, about the text they enter here, and about where grex goes from here.