Me: 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?
Gautum: 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? :-) A person who did any of those things would deserve censure. That is, we should condemn, criticize, and "ding" them. We should argue against their views, hold them up to moral sanction, and hold them in contempt. If someone who did any of those things was banished from the list, however, I would very strongly object. Me: I’ve already posted on the whole “I am/am not a liberal thing. I won’t run through my political standings with you onlist, but suffice it to say a liberal organization just ‘wouldn’t have me as a member.’ I agree that any person who does these things should be censured. But if they continue to do so despite warnings that such behavior is offensive, impolite and contrary to established list etiquette then I completely feel they should be warned, then removed. Do I think the banishment should be immediate? No. Do I think it should be permanent? Perhaps not, depending on circumstance. Do I think John Giorgis should have been threatened onlist with banishment? No, although I would very much like to see what Jeroen says John did, since I read John’s posts pretty carefully and don’t see what justified it. If John was threatened because he merely talked back to a listowner, then the intimidation is despicable. (Please note that I’m not saying that this is what happened. I don’t know the details well enough to make an informed opinion yet.) If John violated Brin-L rules of conduct, then that’s another story. Back to the point at hand: how is calling someone an epithet conducive to civilized discussion? I think you’d agree that it’s not. Well, if a person repeatedly shows that they need to salt their points with insults then should the list put up with their behavior for the sake of preserving their right to free speech? I for one don’t think so. The Brin-L list is not now, and never has been, an anarchy. Gautum: That is what kill files and the delete key are for. Censorship is completely different. Censorship (in particular, prior restraint, which is what would be happening if you expelled someone from the list) is something that can, in general, be justified only by the requirements of national security. Last time I checked, no one on the list with a clearance (is there anyone on the list with a clearance?) was leaking stuff. Me: In my opinion that’s setting the bar for banishment too high. This is not a forum where you’d find dangers to national security, generally, and this list is not being watchdogged by government officials (well, with the glaring exception of Jeroen, but you know what I mean.) And, I agree with you: I posted a few days ago that it’s my opinion that people should use their killfiles instead of hurling epithets at one another. There are other reasons you should expel someone from a list. I’ll give you two, although I can, if pressed, probably come up with more. 1) You can and should expel someone from a list for spamming it. If Alberto (for instance) decided to send lots of pornography to the Cornell server and refused to stop, the listowners can and should ban him. He’s directly interfering with the list by attempting to prevent it from functioning. I used pornography as an example because it’s a clear violation, but “spam” can take many forms: floods of nonsensical posts, diatribes or obscenities. If I were to post an e-mail that said nothing more than “Jeroen is a Nazi” 200 times to the list, that would qualify. 2) Repeated vicious attacks of other listmembers. While one can argue that repeated attacks constitute interference with the list’s ability to function (and in the process ruining other people’s enjoyment of the list,) my feeling here is that people who act this way simply lack the maturity to participate in a civilized manner and don’t deserve to be allowed to do so. Please let me be clear. Saying something once onlist like “You’re just a fucking Nazi” does not fit into this category. Refusing to debate politely despite requests from other listmembers and list owners to do so would. I have not now, nor have I ever seen the behavior I’m describing here exhibited on the list. But I think that such behavior wouldn’t just be inappropriate, it should at least qualify for more than just repeated ‘dings’. Gautum Under any circumstances other than a clear and present danger to vital social interests it's entirely inappropriate. I believe in freedom of speech. Me: I don’t believe this is a “Freedom of Speech” issue for the reasons I mentioned. And we may have to be content to agree to disagree. Gautum: <<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.>> Me: I’m not arguing against that, however, I do think it is and should be possible to argue without calling people names or attacking them onlist. John didn’t. QED, we shouldn’t be discussing his banishment. Gautum: I don't think Jeroen is a "Nazi", because the particular brand of eliminationist anti-Semitism practiced by the Nazis is unique. It's terminologically incorrect, apart from being impolite. I further don't think that John should have made Nazi comparisons - precisely because of that fact. Finally, I would say that he should not have "shouted." But that is (since he's Catholic, I'll use the term) a venial sin. I think I got that right. 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. Me: We’re in pretty much complete agreement here, but I still want to see the evidence from Jeroen. Until he provides that, I’m going to hold my tongue. Of course, he may have posted it by the time I get done writing this. :-) Gautum: Freedom of speech means that sometimes you have to listen to things that make you uncomfortable. If someone used repeated obscenities on the list then, after repeated warnings, 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. Me: We’re in agreement here, as I mentioned above. I didn’t read down this far before I responded point by point, but I’m short on time so I’m not going to edit myself at this point. Gautum: 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. Me: And also in agreement here. Although I think from our conversation, I’d be more likely to hit the “Banish” button than you would. I dislike bullies and arguments that ignore logic. There’s nothing wrong with that. I’m not volunteering to be a listowner. Gautum: I'll go back to my speech code analogy. You cannot punish _speech_ through banishment. Some colleges in the United States punish the expression of racist views (well, what they deem to be racist views) with expulsion. They are wrong. I refused on principle to attend any institution that had such a code, and I would refuse on principle to participate in an internet discussion list that had such rules. Me: Ah, here’s where it gets interesting. Professor Smith of Harvard University announces on the Today show that he hates Canadians and considers them the lowest rung on the evolutionary ladder. He explains that Canadians are inferior human beings and the product of much Neanderthal inbreeding and breeding with cattle. Wouldn’t the University be best served by announcing that the Professor doesn’t speak *for* the University? Wouldn’t the school and the student body also be best served by announcing to the nation that because they feel Professor Smith’s opinions are unfair characterizations of millions of Canadians (and they have clear-cut scientific evidence that Canadians are just as intelligent as the rest of the world) it would be best if he didn’t teach such things to hundreds of Harvard students? Also, please note, as a member of the school’s faculty, he speaks with the name and prestige of the school backing up his point of view. This has happened with other ethnic groups in the past. By your reasoning I might be able to extrapolate that Palestinian schools should teach The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to their students because even if that curriculum is offensive to Jews that point of view (however unfair and possibly indefensible) should be heard. This may not be a perfect analogy, but your point of view seems very black and white to me. I think there might be exceptions to this rule. Gautum: 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. A social sanction would be something where list members decided - on their own - to ignore someone, or criticize them. That is, it seems to me, fully within the rights of everyone on the list. But banishment is the opposite of a social sanction. It is the (forcible) removal of a person from the company of the list. As a punishment for the expression of an opinion it is unacceptable. It is immoral. 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. Me: I believe I’ve made my position clear. I agree that expulsion from the list is not an action to be taken lightly, but I do believe that it is justified under certain circumstances. I don’t however think that we should allow people to spout obscenities without some sort of end solution in mind if they refuse to stop. Gautum: Anyone want to threaten _me_ with expulsion from the list for saying that? Me: Somehow I doubt anyone would. On a personal note, you usually have a keen sense and deep understanding of the issues involved in any topic you take part in and almost always take the conversation in a direction that I would not have anticipated. I may not always agree with you, but I respect your intelligence and the way you add to discussions. Jon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
