[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] Kent's post illustrates Ellen's point - Abuse complaint included
Eric and all assembly members remaining,
I also agree with Eric and ellen's observation that Kent's post was indeed
offensive and used foul language. However I have not particular objection
to Kents use of soul language, rather my objection is that his post was
and is a personal attack that is without foundation. So I am registering
a complaint here to it.
James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)
Weisberg wrote:
> While I had hoped we would work out the voting procedure before addressing
> the merits of specific proposals for rules, I must take advantage of a recent
> exchange to illustrate my own strongly held views on a particular matter.
>
> Please understand that I do NOT intend ANY criticism of Kent's post by the
> following reference, but merely use it to demonstrate the problem inherent in
> subjective criteria for sanctioning speech on a public list.
>
> On January 18th, Ellen Rony wrote regarding what were to become the interim
> rules:
>
> Third, the Rights to Post are subjective as to content, cumbersome
> and
> vague; they place sole discretion in the hands of a Sergeants at
> Arms, who
> may a) unilaterally impose posting limits; b) determine what
> constitutes
> decorum and relevant business of the GA, and c) moderate content.
> These
> rights do not describe an "open forum".
>
> On February 7th, the List Monitor took the following action:
>
> The list rules say that:
>
> - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
> - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> - Not using offensive language
>
> This message does not observe a minimum of decorum, is a personal
> attack,
> and uses offensive language.
>
> Therefore, I declare that the person known to the list as "Jeff
> Williams
> <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>" has had his posting privillege to the GA
> list
> revoked for 2 weeks, starting today, February 7, 2000, and lasting
> until
> not later than Monday, February 21, 2000, 12:00 GMT.
>
> ...
>
> Harald T. Alvestrand
> List monitor
>
> ------------ The main text of the offending message -----------
>
> >Unfortunately, and sadly I am sure the Roberto, Harald, Kent, and
> >William Walsh "The Four Horse-Shitters" are glad to see them
> >go. The major interest of Roberto and Harald especially is new
> >members (Sheep) to fertilize with their Horse Shit...
>
> On February 11th, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > If a substantial percentage of the subscribers had sent email supporting
> > your position, things would be different. But they didn't. We got down
> > to a grim, mostly silent majority waiting for the grandstanding martyrs
> > to finish their speeches. Some people will fight to the death for their
> > right to urinate on the barroom floor...
> >
>
> Sanctioning the form of speech (i.e. how people choose to express their
> points) is a slippery slope with no easy landing. It is very difficult to
> explain why Mr. Williams post required sanction while Mr. Crispin's did not.
> I oppose sanctions for either. Subjective evaluation of style is unnecessary
> and has a chilling effect. And, I would not embroil this list in endless
> arguments regarding which side of what lines particular posts fall.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html