Re: [ga] Time to put Baptista online Joe Baptista's CENSORSHIPProtest post response...

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 13:31 31/12/99 -0600, Weisberg wrote:
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I agree that we should have a moderated list.
>> The problem is the definition of a fair set of rules.
>
>What activities do we need to protect against and what rules are capable of
>addressing those specific problems?
> 

If the GA could define its purpose, then list rules should be confined to
combating postings that are clearly in conflict with that purpose.

As I see one of the purposes of the GA list to be a democratic discussion
forum where different (and opposing) viewpoints can meet, it must deal with
"order" the way a parliament deals with "order".
Honest debate must be encouraged.

Sustained and unapologetic personal attacks have the net effect of
silencing (censoring) the victims.  In a forum of volunteers,
professionals who are paid to be there are less prone to be censored by ad
hominem attacks than volunteers who generally tend to give up and leave.

Good luck to the Chair and to you all with this problem in the New Year.

Eric's second question is even tougher. To draw up rules of civil
list-behaviour is easy enough.  When and how to enforce them is a judgement
call , that in a democratic set-up should always be backed by the majority
of the list participants.
The only way to do this is by a vote.
This way, the offender does not feel "censored" by a Chair or a high-handed
"moderator", but knows that his very audience has had enough.


--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , bootstrap  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/