[ga] Kent's post illustrates Ellen's point

[Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

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