Text 21056, 298 rader
Skriven 2011-07-18 22:21:08 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Kommentar till text 21031 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: Censorship in Fidonet
=============================
HEllo LEe,
On Mon 2011-Jul-18 18:35, Lee Lofaso (2:203/2) wrote to Richard Webb:
RW>YOu and I have batted related issues to this one back in
RW>forth in another echo until the echo mod asked that it
RW>cease, which is his right. But, if this isn't an
RW>appropriate forum then there isn't one.
LL> We could always take it to the CONSPRCY echo. ;)
I do carry that one here, yes.
LL>> Some folks misunderstand free speech, especially certain Americans
LL>> in regards to the First Amendment. The First Amendment exists to
LL>> protect speech. That includes unpopular speech. It also includes
LL>> protecting speech from government interference and from hecklers and
LL>> mobs keeping speakers from speaking.
RW>ON that we can agree. But, here's where the waters get
RW>cloudy.
<snip>
RW>HOwever, let's put this in the light of the newspaper, the
RW>broadcaster, or the bbs sysop/echo moderator.
RW>OTher than publicly licensed facilities such as broadcasters
RW>who must give a certain amount of consideration to the unpopular
RW>viewpoint because it's a provision of holding the license, the
RW>bbs is not the same.
LL> In general that would be true. With one notable exception.
LL> The Flame Echo. A designated flame echo is one where by definition
LL> there are no rules. Anything goes. Most participants flame/insult
LL> others for fun. And exchange such flames and insults with each
LL> other et al infinitum. But then, that is the purpose of such
LL> echoes.
INdeed it is, and should I choose to carry it on my system I should know that
going in.
RW>YOu can say anything you want in the public marketplace, but when
RW>you're a guest on my turf you'll not say anything you want. IF I
RW>edit the magazine/newspaper, etc. I'll always tell you that letters
RW>to the editor may be edited, etc.
LL> Be that as it may, there is also another aspect. You are the sysop
LL> of your own system. If someone who is pretending to be the
LL> moderator of an echo asks/demands you to delink a participant from
LL> that echo, blackmailing you into submission if you don't, then you
LL> are not really in charge of your own system, are you?
Maybe, I'll use what are considered legitimate sources to
determine who the rightful mod is of an echo, which, over
here in NOrth America is the echolist. AT least I'll hope
to. IF the echo is not listed in the echolist, I'll
hopefully have lurked in the echo long enough to know.
<snip>
LL>> The role of fidonet sysops is to ensure that ALL SPEAKERS are not
LL>> censored. It is the role of fidonet sysops to protect ALL who wish
LL>> to speak against those who would like to silence them.
RW>Indeed, but, and this is where we differ, I offer the portal
RW>to users to access various forums. That user may be a guest on
RW>my system, but he's also a guest in the echoes in which he
RW>participates.
LL> And when a mad dictator or her tool tries to blackmail you into
LL> submission you should rightly tell him/her where to go - right
LL> straight to hell.
I'll try to determine whether or not he is the rightful
moderator, or she, but if that information appears to be
correct then I'll act to limit that user's participation in
that echo, which is why I like Maximus. IT's easy enough to do while not
having to mess with my whole access level
structure, etc.
LL> It is *your* system, belonging to no one else.
LL> It does not belong to Janis Kracht.
LL> It does not belong to Ross Cassell.
LL> It does not belong to Bjoern Felten.
LL> It does not even belong to me, much as I might want it.
THat's right, but I choose which forums I wish to make
publicly available, and which I don't. I expect moderators
to police those conferences I make available, so that
someone wishing to discuss, say ham radio doesn't find a
discussion of fly fishing occupying a ham radio conference.
NOw if a regular user of my system wants to start a fly
fishing echo I'm probably going to be most amenable, and
will help him get it carried if asked.
<snip again>
I cannot make any judgments regarding the arguments over
this echo, as until a few months ago I'd look at it briefly
and decide it wasn't worth carrying. I started actually
carrying the echo again when a downlink requested it, and
soon therafter put it on pass through to him, only actually
having the message base for the echo stored on my system
some time before Christmas of last year.
ABout two weeks ago I got fed up again, put it on pass
through. NOw I can read it, my nodelisted downlinks have
access, but I won't make it available to points or any users of my system. I'm
embarrassed to say that this echo
represents FIdonet to anybody.
LL>> The duty of a free and open society is to ensure that ALL VOICES ARE
LL>> HEARD. Fidonet has always stressed its mission as being a means for
LL>> individuals to freely express their own opinions on whatever subject
LL>> that comes to mind. When fidonet sysops do the bidding of tyrants,
LL>> those fidonet sysops have become tyrants themselves. No different
LL>> than Hosni Mubarak. Or Moammar Gadhaffi.
RW>True, but within the context of the appropriate forum as
RW>well. If, for example, you were to start posting jokes
RW>suitable for adults only in the emergcom echo, as its
RW>moderator I would be very quick to ask you to cease, one
RW>request would be all it would take, if there was a repeat,
RW>your host sysop would be asked to curtail your access to the echo.
LL> Of course. However, how a moderator chooses to deal with
LL> participants is another matter. For example, a moderator should
LL> seek to facilitate discussion, not hinder it. Kicking folks out of
LL> an echo is not facilitating discussion, but hindering it. With few
LL> or no participants in a forum, what discussion could there be?
LL> Little or none. Usually all it takes is a gentle nudge by a
LL> moderator to get a participant's attention and
LL> back on track. The ban tree should be reserved for special
LL> cases - such as for illegal activity or spam, etc.
YEs, but as I said, in emergcom if you were to post the joke of the day it
wouldn't take long I'd be asking you to cease
and desist. IF you chose not to cease and desist I'd be
asking your host sysop to cut your access to the echo. IF
no joy there I'd go upstream. IF you would wish to post a
joke of the day there are humor related echoes. A year ago
a side discussion in that echo went on for a bit discussing
facebook and twitter, etc. I asked the participants to move it elsewhere,
which they did, when being politely asked one
time. That's all I'm going to ask is once.
YEt in an echo such as guitar i"m more lax, my moderation
style fits the echo. A discussion of playing the guitar
might drift all over the place, to bars one has played, to a nice dinner, to a
road trip with the band ...
cONtrast that with emergcom. THe focus is different. I
might be tolerant of a few musician jokes, for example, in
the guitar echo, and only step in if the jokes are not in
good taste. But, in emergcom I'm going to react swiftly.
Try posting an opinion piece from current events in the
binkley echo and watch how quickly I respond to that one
<g>. The purpose of the echo sets the tone on how strict
or lax I might be.
RW>You don't, for example, have the right to stand in my front
RW>yard and wave a SArah Palin for president sign.
LL> That is private property. As such, I would need your permission. If
LL> you grant me permission, then yes I can. If not, well, that sign
LL> will be trashed and I could find myself in a paddy wagon. However,
LL> that would only be true if you are the owner and not somebody else
LL> who is pretending to be the owner...
I have a lease on the property. THat means I'd move the
person waving the Palin sign along rather quickly.
RW>You'll be asked one time politely to take it elsewhere. IF
RW>you choose not to do that, other action will be taken, including
RW>summoning law enforcement to remove a trespasser.
LL> I'm not so sure fido moderators have the power to summon law
LL> enforcement. Not for that purpose, anyway. :)
tHere is no law enforcement, except the mail movers, and as
recognized moderator of an echo a mod should be able to
expect mail movers to comply with his request to curtail a
system's write access to the conference. AS a router I will use whatever means
are at my disposal to determine who has
that authority, and should I have a question I'll do what I
can to resolve it. While I'm working on resolving the issue the feed gets cut
however. IT can always be restored.
<snip>
RW>You're welcome to express any viewpoint which is topical to the
RW>echo in any echo I moderate.
LL> Who decides what is topical and what is not? Sometimes a moderator
LL> fails to understand a participant's viewpoint, that viewpoint being
LL> contrary to any other viewpoint that moderator has come across
LL> before. A moderator might ask the participant to drop the subject,
LL> or take it to private. But to ban that participant for expressing a
LL> viewpoint the moderator disagrees with or does not understand would
LL> be an act of censorship.
RW>Don't like Ovation guitars? COol, you can say why in the guitar
RW>echo. ESpecially if you can state why you don't like them in a
RW>clear and lucid manner.
LL> In an international echo, not everyone can be expected to write
LL> their own ideas in a clear and lucid manner (not everybody is a
LL> native english speaker).
True, and anybody who won't take that into consideration is
small minded imho. Just do the best you can <g>. But, here again, take that
discussion to emergcom, which discusses
emergency communications using radio of various types, and
you'll find I'll ask you once to move the conversation to an appropriate place.
RW>IF, however, all you can say is "ovation guitars suck" in the guitar
RW>echo I'm not going to cut your feed, or ask that it be cut, but I
RW>might suggest you grow up a bit
RW><grin>.
LL> Exactly. A gentle nudge. And usually, that is all it takes.
OFten that's all that's needed to get folks to behave in a
conference I find. BAck in the days when I ran a busy hub
system, and a very busy bbs I think I cut two users off from echomail, mainly
for posting chain letter bs in one case,
and for the other for trying to get assistance using radio
equipment illegally in the ham echo. When he hopped to
another board however other sysops were ready for him, and
he did not have access to the ham echo from any other local
board. MR. Chain letter couldn't even post to the local
echoes from my board, and moved boards, but I never saw him
post another chain letter.
RW>LEt's leave aside for a moment all the arguments about
RW>whether FIdonet aws ever intended to be democratic. wHat
RW>fIdonet is, above all, is a portal to many different virtual
RW>places, be they message echoes, file echoes, etc. even if
RW>fIdonet were truly a democracy those various forums are not.
RW>Try getting some blonde to do a striptease at COmmander's
RW>palace sometime, see how long that lasts.
LL> Been there. Done that. Well, sort of. It was Mardi Gras.
TEll me more about this <g>.
LL>> Fidonet sysops have a long and proud history of defending speech of
LL>> all kinds. That includes speech which many people disagree with.
LL>> Speech that actually offends. Fidonet sysops have been known in the
LL>> past to defend the speech, not the message. And that is the way it
LL>> should be. And should always be.
RW>And I will defend that, within the proper context. IF the
RW>echo mod says free and open speech is encouraged I don't
RW>want to see a user of mine castigated for exercising that.
LL> I am going to add that to the rules of the CONSPRCY echo.
LL> "Free and open speech is encouraged." I like that.
RW>Back in my busy bbs days there ws one user who posted a
RW>piece on illegal cb equipoment in the ham echo. AT that
RW>time the ham echo banned such postings. He was admonished
RW>for it, and never repeated the offense.
LL> Some folks will take a hint, others won't.
Right, as the one fellow I mentioned above didn't. I'd
forgotten about him until reminded by a buddy back in IOwa
the other day.
RW>Another user back in those days posted one of those Dave
RW>Rhodes get rich chain letters in an international echo, and
RW>was immediately banned from my system.
LL> Special case - illegal activity or spam.
Right, and he chose to use another board when I asked him
never to do that again. tHey had door games he wanted to
play anyway.
RW>I publicized all over the board that posting such garbage would
RW>earn one an immediate lockout, and he did it nayway. NOt just was
RW>he locked out of my board for it, but every other board in town that
RW>was connected to FIdonet. OF the 5 fidonet boards in town then all
RW>sysops shared information freely about problem users. HE made the
RW>list first try.
LL> Again, that was with good reason/cause. Free speech does not give
LL> folks the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, cause a riot, or
LL> any of a number of other things. Censorship is to deny folks, or
LL> certain individuals, from feely expressing their own opinions. Do
LL> know the difference.
RIght, and another board joined the community, my chain
letter problem right away started using it. I let the sysop know that that
user might be a problem. USer never repeated the mistake.
Regards,
Richard
---
* Origin: (1:116/901)
|