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?

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. 

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.

response 117 of 157:

Feb 7 17:23 UTC 2004

She could satisfy jep by marrying him.

response 119 of 157:

Feb 7 17:51 UTC 2004

I am frightened.