Re: [ga] Will we chase rabbits or ideas?

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 11:19:57PM -0600, Weisberg wrote:
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
>      > What many knee-jerk fanatic free speech advocates forget
> 
> This comment illustrates the problem with civility rules.  We all
> have different levels of sensitivity and different styles of
> communication.  Some people will complain that such sarcasm is
> offensive, inappropriate and requires sanction.  Who wants to spend
> their(our) time discussing whether particular
> comments are out of order?  Isn't that where we are going?

No.  That is *not* what we are doing.  We are *not* discussing
whether particular individual comments are out of order.  We are
discussing flagrant abuses.  We are discussing mailbomb attacks,
deliberate and repeated attempts to "disturb the peace", and long
established patterns of behavior.  We are discussing behaviors that,
in physical analogy, no physical forum on earth would -- or could --
tolerate on a continuing basis.

Incidentally, it occurs to me that you, and some others, may simply
not be aware of what happened -- "Joe Baptista" sent spoofed mail
messages from *every single email address on the list* -- 260
addresses.  The list software tried to send every one of those
messages to every member of the list -- that's 260*260 = 67,600 
messages.  The messages, including headers, were about a kilobyte 
each -- 67 megabytes of garbage email.

In other words, there was in fact a deliberate attack, criminal in
some jurisdictions, on the list.  Elisabeth caught the attack, and
shut down the list, so most people didn't see it.

We are not just talking about "civil discourse", or what is or is not
out of order. 


> 
> 
> 
>        > noise can cause actual damage.  I can't put a
>      megaphone to your ear
>        > and shout, blowing out your eardrum, and claim that it
>      is my free
>        > speech right.
> 
> 
> No.  That is an "assault" if not a "battery," crimes in all
> jurisdictions.  But, in the U.S.,  there is a presumption that any
> limitation on speech is improper.

In certain contexts, that is true.  But as a general statement it is 
completely false.  

> Only the minimum regulation
> necessary to accomplish a clearly identified and proper objective is
> allowed, especially in political contexts.

You are confusing "Congress shall make no law" with "there shall be
no regulation of any kind in any context whatsoever by anybody".  
This is a common confusion.

Even in governmental circles "freedom of speech" is strictly
constrained by rules of order -- if you speak out of turn or exceed
your time speaking in Congress, the Sergant at Arms will throw you
out.  There are generic and informal "rules of order" for mailing
lists; it would be nice if they were formalized, but in the meantime
we can go with the informal ones. 

Morever, this list is not in the US.  It is run in France.

[...]

>        >...Breaking rules of etiquette that causes others to
>      leave the
>        >discussion is an abuse of THEIR free speech rights.
> 
> Perhaps.  But, the perameters tend to be subjective and hard to
> apply in most cases.  On balance, I prefer filtering.

Yes, as you said, it works for you.  But it doesn't work for 
everyone.  It certainly doesn't work if the messages are spoofed. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain