Text 21031, 229 rader
Skriven 2011-07-18 18:35:38 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 19666 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Ärende: Censorship in Fidonet
=============================
Hello Richard,

RW>YOu and I have batted related issues to this one back in
RW>forth in another echo until the echo mod asked that it
RW>cease, which is his right.  But, if this isn't an
RW>appropriate forum then there isn't one.

We could always take it to the CONSPRCY echo.  ;)

 LL>> Some folks misunderstand free speech, especially certain Americans
 LL>> in regards to the First Amendment.  The First Amendment exists to
 LL>> protect speech.  That includes unpopular speech.  It also includes
 LL>> protecting speech from government interference and from hecklers and
 LL>> mobs keeping speakers from speaking.

RW>ON that we can agree.  But, here's where the waters get
RW>cloudy.  tHe government according to the U.s> constitution
RW>cannot censor free speech.  YEs we get into the semantics
RW>and legalese of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

I'll post a separate thread on that matter.  Lots of different
aspects in regards to free speech.

RW>HOwever, let's put this in the light of the newspaper, the
RW>broadcaster, or the bbs sysop/echo moderator.

RW>OTher than publicly licensed facilities such as broadcasters
RW>who must give a certain amount of consideration to the unpopular
RW>viewpoint because it's a provision of holding the license, the
RW>bbs is not the same.

In general that would be true.  With one notable exception.
The Flame Echo.  A designated flame echo is one where by definition
there are no rules.  Anything goes.  Most participants flame/insult
others for fun.  And exchange such flames and insults with each
other et al infinitum.  But then, that is the purpose of such echoes.

RW>YOu can say anything you want in the public marketplace, but when
RW>you're a guest on my turf you'll not say anything you want.  IF I
RW>edit the magazine/newspaper, etc.  I'll always tell you that letters
RW>to the editor may be edited, etc.

Be that as it may, there is also another aspect.  You are the sysop
of your own system.  If someone who is pretending to be the moderator
of an echo asks/demands you to delink a participant from that echo,
blackmailing you into submission if you don't, then you are not really
in charge of your own system, are you?

 LL>> Let's put things in light of fidonet.

RW>Indeed, let's.

RW><snip>

 LL>> The role of fidonet sysops is to ensure that ALL SPEAKERS are not
 LL>> censored.  It is the role of fidonet sysops to protect ALL who wish
 LL>> to speak against those who would like to silence them.

RW>Indeed, but, and this is where we differ, I offer the portal
RW>to users to access various forums.  That user may be a guest on
RW>my system, but he's also a guest in the echoes in which he
RW>participates.

And when a mad dictator or her tool tries to blackmail you into
submission you should rightly tell him/her where to go - right straight
to hell.

It is *your* system, belonging to no one else.
It does not belong to Janis Kracht.
It does not belong to Ross Cassell.
It does not belong to Björn Felten.
It does not even belong to me, much as I might want it.

Björn Felten has declared himself as being the *sole moderator* of
this echo.  He is basing that claim on having been appointed to his
present position by the previous editor, Frank Vest.

Ross Cassell has never forgiven Frank Vest for that.  And he never
will.  Ross Cassell also hates my guts.  For more than one reason.
Including for having been a guest on Frank Vest's BBS.

Without a demand (if such demand is reasonable and legitimate)
by Björn Felten himself, you should tell all others who demand
a participant to leave this forum to go right straight to hell
where they belong.

That is what Ed Koon should have done.
But he did not have the balls to do it.
That is what other sysops should have done.
But they also lacked the balls to do it.
And yes, there are some who actually did.
They are the ones who have brass balls.
Such as Frank Vest, Steve Asher, and others.

Or if you want to play nice, just ignore them.

[..]

 LL>> The duty of a free and open society is to ensure that ALL VOICES ARE
 LL>> HEARD.  Fidonet has always stressed its mission as being a means for
 LL>> individuals to freely express their own opinions on whatever subject
 LL>> that comes to mind.  When fidonet sysops do the bidding of tyrants,
 LL>> those fidonet sysops have become tyrants themselves. No different
 LL>> than Hosni Mubarak.  Or Moammar Gadhaffi.

RW>True, but within the context of the appropriate forum as
RW>well.  If, for example, you were to start posting jokes
RW>suitable for adults only in the emergcom echo, as its
RW>moderator I would be very quick to ask you to cease, one
RW>request would be all it would take, if there was a repeat,
RW>your host sysop would be asked to curtail your access to the echo.

Of course.  However, how a moderator chooses to deal with
participants is another matter.  For example, a moderator should
seek to facilitate discussion, not hinder it.  Kicking folks out
of an echo is not facilitating discussion, but hindering it.
With few or no participants in a forum, what discussion could
there be?  Little or none.  Usually all it takes is a gentle
nudge by a moderator to get a participant's attention and
back on track.  The ban tree should be reserved for special
cases - such as for illegal activity or spam, etc.

RW>You don't, for example, have the right to stand in my front
RW>yard and wave a SArah Palin for president sign.

That is private property.  As such, I would need your permission.
If you grant me permission, then yes I can.  If not, well, that sign
will be trashed and I could find myself in a paddy wagon.  However,
that would only be true if you are the owner and not somebody else
who is pretending to be the owner...

RW>You'll be asked one time politely to take it elsewhere.  IF
RW>you choose not to do that, other action will be taken, including
RW>summoning law enforcement to remove a trespasser.

I'm not so sure fido moderators have the power to summon law
enforcement.  Not for that purpose, anyway.  :)

 LL>> This country has flourished because we allow ALL OPINIONS TO BE
 LL>> HEARD.  Once upon a time, fidonet also flourished.  But that was
 LL>> when fidonet sysops allowed all voices to be heard.  Today that is
 LL>> no longer true.

RW>There again, it depends.

Not really.  Either folks are allowed to freely express their own
opinions without fear of retribution or they are not.  Saying folks
are free to express their own opinions only if you agree with those
opinions is not nearly the same thing.

RW>You're welcome to express any viewpoint which is topical to the
RW>echo in any echo I moderate.

Who decides what is topical and what is not?  Sometimes a moderator
fails to understand a participant's viewpoint, that viewpoint being
contrary to any other viewpoint that moderator has come across before.
A moderator might ask the participant to drop the subject, or take
it to private.  But to ban that participant for expressing a viewpoint
the moderator disagrees with or does not understand would be an act
of censorship.

RW>Don't like Ovation guitars?  COol, you can say why in the guitar
RW>echo.  ESpecially if you can state why you don't like them in a
RW>clear and lucid manner.

In an international echo, not everyone can be expected to write
their own ideas in a clear and lucid manner (not everybody is a native
english speaker).

RW>IF, however, all you can say is "ovation guitars suck" in the guitar
RW>echo I'm not going to cut your feed, or ask that it be cut, but I
RW>might suggest you grow up a bit
RW><grin>.

Exactly.  A gentle nudge.  And usually, that is all it takes.

RW>LEt's leave aside for a moment all the arguments about
RW>whether FIdonet aws ever intended to be democratic.  wHat
RW>fIdonet is, above all, is a portal to many different virtual
RW>places, be they message echoes, file echoes, etc.  even if
RW>fIdonet were truly a democracy those various forums are not.
RW>Try getting some blonde to do a striptease at COmmander's
RW>palace sometime, see how long that lasts.

Been there.  Done that.  Well, sort of.  It was Mardi Gras.

 LL>> Fidonet sysops have a long and proud history of defending speech of
 LL>> all kinds.  That includes speech which many people disagree with.
 LL>> Speech that actually offends.  Fidonet sysops have been known in the
 LL>> past to defend the speech, not the message.  And that is the way it
 LL>> should be.  And should always be.

RW>And I will defend that, within the proper context.  IF the
RW>echo mod says free and open speech is encouraged I don't
RW>want to see a user of mine castigated for exercising that.

I am going to add that to the rules of the CONSPRCY echo.
"Free and open speech is encouraged."  I like that.

RW>Back in my busy bbs days there ws one user who posted a
RW>piece on illegal cb equipoment in the ham echo.  AT that
RW>time the ham echo banned such postings.  He was admonished
RW>for it, and never repeated the offense.

Some folks will take a hint, others won't.

RW>Another user back in those days posted one of those Dave
RW>Rhodes get rich chain letters in an international echo, and
RW>was immediately banned from my system.

Special case - illegal activity or spam.

RW>I publicized all over the board that posting such garbage would
RW>earn one an immediate lockout, and he did it nayway.  NOt just was
RW>he locked out of my board for it, but every other board in town that
RW>was connected to FIdonet.  OF the 5 fidonet boards in town then all
RW>sysops shared information freely about problem users.  HE made the
RW>list first try.

Again, that was with good reason/cause.  Free speech does not give
folks the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, cause a riot, or
any of a number of other things.  Censorship is to deny folks, or
certain individuals, from feely expressing their own opinions.  Do
know the difference.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)