----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:19 PM Subject: Re: Calling someone a Nazi is OK?? (Was: Re: Etiquette)
> > > > Completely for the sake of argument and with absolutely no offense intended > > to other subscribers, by your comments I would assume that if someone on > the > list called a Black man a "fucking nigger" or a Jew a "fucking Kike" you > would have no qualms with that? You also would not condemn, criticize or > "ding" the poster? > > Jon > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Me: > No, obviously I would do all of those things. What is it about liberals > that you guys don't understand the difference between censure and censor? : > -) Are you a member of that noted conservative organization, the ACLU? IIRC, they defended free speach for KKK members. :-) Seriously, I think that there are idiots who believe in censorship instead of censure across the political spectrum. And there are folks who oppose censorship and feel the obligation to censure when it is needed across the political spectrum too. > I believe in freedom of speech. That means that John is allowed to say what he believes > without being threatened with expulsion from the list. It means that > Jeroen is allowed to do the same. > >But that is (since he's Catholic, I'll use the term) a venial sin. I think I > got that right. Yes you do. > Penny ante stuff. _But_ - to call in an absentee > list-owner because you are unable to hold your own in an argument is > pathetic. To try and intimidate a listmember into silence is vile. There > is no defense and no justification for those actions. I agree. Those are mortal sins, IMHO. Its even worse than mentioning lawsuits because you don't like a post or misquoting private conversations that were supposed to remain private. > I might ascent to their removal from the > list, if and only if I felt - upon carefully reviewing their postings - > that the usage of obscenities contributed absolutely nothing to discussion > on the list. Even then I would strongly prefer that people used their > killfiles and it would take a lot of convincing to get me to back down from > that position. I think the justification was twofold. 1) A number of people got/get the list in digest form. Individual posts could not be eliminated. 2) The person was spamming the list, so most of the content of the digests were these obscenities. I agree with you about using the delete key, but I think that this does qualify for justification for removing an obscene spammer. > You can disagree with someone. You can argue with them. You can certainly > ignore them. Those are social sanctions. But banishment from the list is > not that. It is punishment from that group (the list-owners) which is the > closest thing this list has to an authority. ....It is a violation of the principles of the list. >And it is a violation of the paramount value of freedom of speech and discussion. > Everyone involved with the making of that threat should be ashamed of > themselves, and so should anyone who supports it. I fully agree. The etiquette rules were not designed for this. As Julia pointed out, removal was considered a last resort for someone who was simply cursing at everyone. Even so, IIRC, the banishment was not permanent.
