|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 99 responses total. |
cel
|
|
response 75 of 99:
| 
Jan 5 22:04 UTC 1995 |
re #74, a disclaimer could mention that.
|
mdw
|
|
response 76 of 99:
|
Jan 6 11:23 UTC 1995 |
My best understanding of slander/libel is that they have a fairly narrow
interpretation in this country. You have to show both that it's a lie,
and that it caused damage, and even then, "free speech" issues general
take precedence, meaning that slander/libel against public figures, in
general, or political figures, in particular, are relatively
meaningless. England and New Zeeland have more powerful libel laws, but
it certainly doesn't seem to restrain fleet street that much. Which is
not to say there's no risk here for grex, but let's not get carried away
with too much paranoia over too few facts.
Distateful as it may seem, there are reasons why it's best not to be too
hasty with censoring or "removing" ill-advised material unless the
material is clearly and unambiguously not legal (copywritten material,
credit card numbers.) Removing material too hastily can lead to great
suspicions in anyone who didn't see the original material, in that it
may have been improperly removed, or said something different than what
was actually said. That can lead to much *worse* dmaage, to all
concerned, than to leave it there for all to judge. The furor that
exists here is *small potatoes* compared to what would be here by now if
it *had* been deleted at first sight by a more proactive management.
|
tsty
|
|
response 77 of 99:
|
Jan 6 15:07 UTC 1995 |
yeh, like when ....oh, well, that's slimey history of ITD's perversions.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 78 of 99:
|
Jan 25 23:50 UTC 1995 |
Since freezing/retiring leaves an item still readable, wouldn't one option be
to do that when the FW has serious concerns, then mention that it was done,
so that those who care have a chance to look at it, and object if it
shouldn't have been so treated?
|
sidhe
|
|
response 79 of 99:
|
Jan 26 20:18 UTC 1995 |
SCG, I must say that I agree with you. Agora #32 was the worst posting
I have ever had the misfortune to stumble across.
One thing still needs to be addressed:
When NUMEROUS amounts of people, including the author of the item,
express an unmistakable desire to have an atrocious item killed, what is
the REAL reason why it should not be? And, I'm not looking for the "free
speech" excuse, as I've read 78 responses worth enough of that.
The right to free speech is important. DAMN important. But what about
another Constitutional right, the right to Privacy? Everyone involved in
the posted "conversation" asked for it to be killed, as, eventually, did
the poster. Where is this right being upheld?
I'm not going to stand here and say that Free Speech isn't a
good thing, but I *will* say that, IMO, No constitutional right is more
valid than another!
<Sidhe takes off his George Washington costume, and sends it to the
Laundromat, to get rid of the sweat-and-tear stains>
Seriously, folks, We must not ignore these things, when they do
occur, or they *will* be the death of us, in the end.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 80 of 99:
|
Jan 26 21:33 UTC 1995 |
When one person whines "That's offensive.", that's amusing.
When many people say "That's offensive," tha's thought-provoking.
When just about everybody says "That's offensive," that's time to do something.
|
ajax
|
|
response 81 of 99:
|
Jan 26 21:33 UTC 1995 |
One reason I've heard for not erasing the item is that other people's
responses would be erased too, not just the item's authors. Not everyone
who responded in the item wanted it erased, but erasing it would have
erased their comments too.
Also, I'm familiar with a constitutional amendment protecting free speech,
but what's the constitutional right to privacy you're referring to? We have
privacy rights, but are they really in the constitution?
|
carson
|
|
response 82 of 99:
|
Jan 27 04:46 UTC 1995 |
I thought Agora #32 was great. It revealed a lot about certain users.
It even influenced my vote this time around.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 83 of 99:
|
Jan 27 14:59 UTC 1995 |
It was GREAT?? I.. ooh.. nevermind, I'll comment on that when I
cool down
Look, I agree with lilmo.. when it comes to these things, it differs
greatly between ONE person saying something and MANY people saying some-
thing.
Oh, and, yes, privacy is a constitutional right. Look it up.
|
katie
|
|
response 84 of 99:
|
Jan 27 19:51 UTC 1995 |
I don't think that has anything to do with what happened.
|
andyv
|
|
response 85 of 99:
|
Jan 27 21:30 UTC 1995 |
The discussion in agora 32 was great. Too bad we couldn't just cut out
the first bunch of garbage that started the discussion.
|
ajax
|
|
response 86 of 99:
|
Jan 27 22:24 UTC 1995 |
This is supposed to be a democratic system. Can someone who wants the
item erased put forth a proposal, allowing members can vote on the issue?
Granted it's not speedy, but in addition to erasing the item, it would give
the board a better idea of how people would like them to act in the future.
In the item itself, I think maybe 15-20 people wanted the item "killed", and
five or so spoke on behalf of keeping it. But I wouldn't interpret that as
just about everyone wanting the item killed. Some opponents may have been
biting their tongue to avoid exacerbating some already very upset people.
|
steve
|
|
response 87 of 99:
|
Jan 27 22:28 UTC 1995 |
15-20 wanted it removed, 5 or so spoke for not censoring it, and nearly
a thousand didn't speak. I don't think we can draw anything from that.
|
remmers
|
|
response 88 of 99:
|
Jan 28 11:52 UTC 1995 |
Sure we can, since there are no quorum requirements any longer. :-/
|
cicero
|
|
response 89 of 99:
|
Jan 28 16:16 UTC 1995 |
Holding an election on whether an item should be removed would be
very silly in my opinion--and inapropriate. It's kind of like trying
to kill a mosquito with a chemical wepons artillery shell. There are much
better ways.
I believe I was (very early in the discussion) one of the people who said
that I felt that it was ok for the FW to kill the item--in this case--but
I would NOT vote in favor of killing such an item in a plebicite. Those are
two different things.
While John and I disagree on the issue of quorums for policy votes, his
comment does remind us that we now have more of a responsabilty to only
propose changes which are appropriate for member votes. Many aspects of
grex usage require responsability. It is part of our working assumption that
people can be trusted to be responsable, (otherwise why are we giving everyone
shell access?) The right of members to make proposals is just another facet of
this assumption.
|
srw
|
|
response 90 of 99:
|
Jan 28 18:28 UTC 1995 |
hear hear!
|
lilmo
|
|
response 91 of 99:
|
Jan 28 19:29 UTC 1995 |
Constitutional clarification:
The US Constitution prohibits the federal and state govts from performing
certain actions restricting freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. The
"right of privacy" referred to above is an interpretation, based upon the 5th
Amendment, the 4th, the 10th and the 14th, I think. It is NOT explicitly
stated ANYWHERE in the Constitution, and speaks only to govt actions anyways.
Now, states and the fed govt can and HAVE enacted LAWS to protect ppl from
invasion of privacy by organizations and ppl, but the Constitution was written
to limit GOVT actions, not those of private individuals.
Re: #89, 1st paragraph: Heh, heh, heh... *evil grin*
|
ajax
|
|
response 92 of 99:
|
Jan 29 01:15 UTC 1995 |
I think a vote is kinda overkill too, but what constructive suggestions
can people think of to resolve this issue?
The item is "killed," but not erased, and several people feel it should be.
I happen to disagree with them, but want to see their request resolved.
If this debate just fizzles out over time, not making any concrete decision
has the same effect as deciding not to erase the item, which seems unfair.
I really think they're in the minority on this, but they don't think so, and
compromises are unlikely. What other suggestions do people have for reaching
a final decision? Vote? Board vote? FW's final word? SHOUTING MATCH? :-D
|
rcurl
|
|
response 93 of 99:
|
Jan 29 21:47 UTC 1995 |
What would you identify as the problem that currently exists(i.e. *now*),
due to item <##>?
|
ajax
|
|
response 94 of 99:
|
Jan 30 00:11 UTC 1995 |
I think the problem some people see is that the item is still readable.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 95 of 99:
|
Jan 30 03:47 UTC 1995 |
Indeed, it is not killed, merely "retired", so much like Coleman
Young, it can still be just as obnoxious as before retirement, but it's
just less in the public view. I'm still saying that the trash needs to
be taken out of even the cleanest households every now and then, and that
this item IS trash, and should be disposed of.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 96 of 99:
|
Jan 30 07:09 UTC 1995 |
Who's reading it? I was exposed to it on the first round, and it was
so dumb, I skipped the last 80% or so. I am definitely not defending its
retention, but it seems to me doing nothing is quickly just as effective.
|
sidhe
|
|
response 97 of 99:
|
Jan 31 14:43 UTC 1995 |
Any curious newbie, who wants to know why there's a hole in the browse
menu between #'s 31 and 33, that's who.
|
carson
|
|
response 98 of 99:
|
Jan 31 22:49 UTC 1995 |
oh, come on! Newbies aren't *that* smart.
;)
|
sidhe
|
|
response 99 of 99:
|
Feb 1 21:56 UTC 1995 |
Oh, no? I'm not sure I'd count myself out of that designation, yet!
|