Re: [ga] NC members, censorship and other absurd things

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

The solution is technological and well-known on the Internet: provide
three lists.  

One is filtered according to PUBLISHED rules (there are no such rules of
which I'm aware at present for this list).

A second list is unfiltered.  

A third list is for (horribly dull) discussions of whether the filtering
the first list complies with the published rules (in order to keep this
dull stuff off the filtered list).

People subscribe to whatever they want.  After that, there are two
possible models:

A) Posting is not allowed directly to list two.  All posts published on
list one are also sent to list two. Furthermore, all posts deemed
unsuitable for list one are sent to list two.  The advantage is that both
lists move at the same speed.  The disadvantage is that secret censorship
is slightly more possible since no posts appear on either list one or two
until the moderator sees them.  Conceivably there may be liability issues
in this model outside the US.

B) Alternately, no posting is allowed to list one.  Instead, all posts are
sent directly to list two, and the moderator chooses the ones fit to be
copied to list one.  The disadvantage is that posts show up on the
trash-filled list before they appear on the filtered list.  The advantage
is that claims of censorship can have no credibility.  I would expect
there are even fewer possible liability issues in this model.

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999, Amadeu Abril i Abril wrote:

> Javier,
> 
> censorghip?? Come on, this is not what is going on.

Are you saying that the allegation that someone was blocking posts to the
lists BEFORE the latest round of offensive behavior is false?

> What happens is that some people have tried a bail attck on the
> dnso.org server. And have used forged e-mail addresses. This, under
> many jurisditions are illegal acts, criminal acts more precisely.
> 
> The solution is not simply "Elisabeth, we supprotyou and let's ignore
> the rest". First, antisocial behaviour has to be dealt with. IMHO

Actually, antisocial behavior deals with itself quite nicely.  The
antisocial people get a bad reputation and everyone sensible ignores them.  
No centralized action is required.

> things like these go well beyond the line, and are the exact kind of
> stuff that requires some kind of protection. 
> 

From where does this requirement derive?  

> We need some basic rules. Preventing corss-posting. Limiting the
> number of posts per day. Alliowiung immediate unsbuscription for those
> using the lists for illegal, antisocial and perfectly irrelevant acts
> as this Joe Baptista (or whatever his real neame is). Individual
> mailfilters is not enogh.
> 

The most important thing is to have an unfiltered alternative so that no
one can claim they have no forum at all.  The second most important thing
is to write down the rules for the filtered list in advance, to minimize
cries of "ad hoc" censorship.

> The GA will be what it decides to be. It has so far decided to be
> perfectly irrelevant, as it has focused on anything but DNSO-related
> matters. Fair enough, but unfortunate. If now we all decide that we

This is, in my opinion, the almost inevitable consequence of the NC's
constant acts to remove authority from the GA.  Take away authority and
many responsible people leave; the ones who stay end up squabbling over
trifles.  (Think "academic politics"!)

> are unable to tell free specch from mailserver attacks, we will make
> fools of ourselves. Not my individual choice, frankly.
> 
> Please try to read the GA archives. The real fear is not that this
> list gets censored. It is that it gets completly ignored.
> 

Secret censorship will destroy the list as effectively as anything else.

-- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--