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.

response 86 of 157:

Feb 7 02:46 UTC 2004

I think it would also be considerate of jep's ex-wife to delete all mention
of her from grex.  Both of them acted rather immaturely and they probably
don't want the details immortalized.  

response 88 of 157:

Feb 7 03:05 UTC 2004

Ignore her, she doesn't read people's responses.

response 90 of 157:

Feb 7 03:32 UTC 2004

I think that this comes down to several different interpretations of what Grex
is to its users and the assumptions that they were using the system under.
I certainly -- before this discussion -- never realized that people actually
read old items, and I never thought of discussions being archived for the
ages. To me, agora/various cfs in various incarnations were current
discussions, which were fun and informative while on-going, but I'd never go
back and re-read it once the current discussion was done. I thought of it as
a conversation more than publishing -- fleeting and impermanent. Obviously,
this informs how I see the current vote -- I don't feel as if it's such a big
deal because (at least in jep's case, and in valerie's old diaries) the items
were closed long ago (a few years, right?) and the discussion was over. I
think that this is not the way everyone sees it, but some of us do (I'm
agreeing with keesan, at least. Amazing!).  Also, since to me it's a
conversation more than "writing", I don't feel this attachment to my words.
I wrote them, yes,  but they aren't something I have my ego attached to, in
the same way that I do things that I write for publication or that I write
with the intent of having people read them (as in essays, etc.) I write my
postings in the best way I can, and I try to make them clear and legible, but
they aren't agonized over and polished and "written" in the same way that I
write for publication. 

I do realize that other people have other viewpoints, but you must realize
that my viewpoint is as valid as yours -- my Grex is also a valid Grex. I
think that people are getting into "one true wayism" here, and it's got to
stop if we're going to build a Grex that everyone will still be comfortable
with. 

I know that I will never post anything beyond the most trivial and most fluffy
details of my life on this system again. I won't share who I am, or what I
would like to have help with, or details of my past that might shine light
on another's problems, since I don't like being made fun of, as I was in the
"agora" parody cf. on M-net. I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. I don't
think it was funny and I really resent the fallout from it (Valerie's reaction
and Jep's sudden desire to have his divorce items removed among other things).
I resent the fact that some people are apparently so lacking in empathy that
they can say "it's only pixels. it's only the internet" when people do very
clearly do find these pixels to be communication and ways to reach out to
other people. I resent some people insisting that obviously everything needs
to stay online forever because otherwise there will be no free speech. I feel
as if I can't share anything terribly personal anymore, because there's no
community here. And that's very sad.