Xref: utzoo soc.culture.jewish:8492 news.sysadmin:1759 comp.mail.misc:1423 rec.humor.d:1250 news.misc:2205 misc.misc:4041 soc.culture.misc:480 soc.misc:942 comp.mail.uucp:2416 news.admin:4133
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,news.sysadmin,comp.mail.misc,rec.humor.d,news.misc,misc.misc,soc.culture.misc,soc.misc,comp.mail.uucp,news.admin
Subject: Re: bigoted racist misuse of email and computer accounts must be dealt with
Summary: This just might be beyond the capability of sites to deal with.
Keywords: sysadmins should act to stop racist mail
Message-ID: <17617@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 1 Dec 88 07:42:37 GMT
References: <10704@ihlpa.ATT.COM>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Followup-To: news.admin,news.sysadmin,comp.mail.misc
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 108

In article <10704@ihlpa.ATT.COM> davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) writes:
>It seems that Nancy Gould has been struck again.  I will post this
>one also....

[obscene hate mail posted]

This is rather interesting.  For about a year on a BBS in Ann Arbor
called m-net, I received similar hate mail.  Coincidentally the mail
I received had identical wording.  Mine was from somebody who called
himself Scott Renner.  A few months back somebody named Scott Renner
started posting articles to soc.women.  Although these articles were
from a different site, they appeared to express similar (if more
subtly worded) sentiments regarding women, and I assumed it was the
same Scott Renner.  I was told it was a different person, but, of
course, I have no evidence one way or the other.

Supposing that some of the *actual* fascist Nazi youth were into
computers and belonged to the *actual* national fascist computer
network started by Louis Beam some years back.  It would then be
more than likely that they would have computer accounts all over the
country, would be interested in learning how to send mail that
couldn't be traced, and would share accounts and information with
each other.

Now it is quite possible that this is one lone nut, due to the
identical wording and method of operation, but since there *are*
organized fascist Nazi youth groups and at least one organized
national fascist computer network, it is equally possible that it
is part of a concerted attempt to discourage women and other
minorities from participating in Usenet discussions.  If the latter,
it appears to be working very well, as participation by women has
never reflected the actual percentage of women with access at large
sites, and has not increased as would be expected with the influx
of women into computing over the years.

One woman posted to soc.women a while back that women who post should
"expect" to be subjected to obscene hate mail.  That alone might
discourage professional women from posting, since it might conflict
with their academic and career expectations.  

Some site administrators have insisted that since they are privately
owned sites, they have an absolute right to transmit personal obscene
attacks or anything else they wish.  My objection to this is that
while they own their own machines, they do not own the machines at
other sites, such as large corporations, government installations,
and universities that carry Usenet and UUCP mail, but are federally
subsidized or otherwise subject to anti-discrimination laws.  While
it might be the right of a bigot to attack somebody on the basis of
race, religion, sex, or other discriminatory factor on their own
machine, I do not believe it is their right to subject large sites
to possible loss of federal subsidies for sponsoring a discriminatory
activity.

If Usenet and UUCP mail are actually totally beyond the control of
site administrators, it is possible that many large sites will not
be able to continue afford the risk of subsidizing an activity they
cannot control and that could subject them to possible loss of federal
subsidies, contracts, or other penalties.  

Freedom of speech implies the corresponding freedom not to have to
listen to things we don't want to hear.  If I get hate mail through
the post office, I can ask them not to deliver mail from that sender
or address in the future, and if traced, the sender can be subject
to federal penalties.  I can turn off radio or tv shows I don't wish
to be subjected to.  I can refuse to buy books, records, or magazines
I find offensive.  I can have the phone company put a trap on my
phone and trace harassing phone calls.  But I have no way to protect
myself from hate mail on Usenet, other than to simply not participate.

When the ground rules are:  You will be subject to discrimination,
harassment, denigration, death threats, and intimidation, and your
only alternative is not to use the system if you are female, Jewish,
or a member of another minority group, the system itself is, by
definition, discriminatory, as there is no possible way a person
can participate on equal terms if they belong to a historically
discriminated against group.

Laughing it off as a joke, attempting to discredit anyone who
complains, and other tired old tactics, have been tried too often
to convince a court that something is not serious when it is.  If
it weren't serious, we wouldn't need laws.  Too many women have been
attacked this way for it to be seen as just a joke or "merely free
speech."  It is a discriminatory condition that creates a hostile
environment, intimidates women, and prevents women from participating
on equal terms.

The problem is not whom to sue, but who doesn't want to run the risk
of being sued.  Most major sites probably won't want to subsidize
any discriminatory activity they cannot control.  

For those who are concerned about the survival of Usenet, I've said
this before and I'll say it again.  If Usenet continues to be a
discriminatory activity with severely limited female participation
due to harassment and intimidation, it doesn't deserve to survive.
Unless it can be open to everyone on equal terms, without regard to
race, sex, religion, or other personal factors, it has failed in the
purpose for which it was created, and other attempts must be made
to create a more democratic system with more open and equal access
for everyone.

Bigots have the right to express their views, but they cannot
walk into your university, corporation, or government facility and
denigrate somebody on the basis of discriminatory factors because
the *site* would be held responsible, not just the bigot.  You are
legally as responsible for your computers as you are for your
physical premises.  

--Mark