Xref: utzoo soc.culture.jewish:8466 news.misc:2188 news.sysadmin:1747
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!era1987
From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,news.misc,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism (Jew-hatred) on the network. What should be done?
Message-ID: <17569@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 30 Nov 88 16:53:10 GMT
References: <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> <577@oravax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 131

In article <577@oravax.UUCP> harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper) writes:
>Can it be done?  Perhaps.  Should it be done?  Never.
>The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not protect your right to express the view
that the President should be assassinated.  In estabishing Justice,
insuring domestic Tranquility, and promoting the *general* welfare,
the Constitution CANNOT guarantee absolute protection to anything
that would interfere with those goals.  Americans come in all shapes,
sizes, colors, races, religions, and other categories.  We cannot
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
unless we recognize that the Constitution cannot protect racism,
bigotry, hatred and divisiveness in an absolute manner.  Expressing
a view is protected.  I could say, with Constitution protection, that
I think all  are .  But when I direct a
written or verbal attack at a specific person, that is *not* a
view that I am expressing, it is an attack against an American
citizen, and it does not promote domestic tranquility or the general
welfare.  For political purposes, some have suggested that participation
in Usenet makes one a public figure.  It is permissible to make verbal
attacks, to a certain extent, on public figures, for political purposes.
But merely participating in a Usenet discussion does not give anyone
political power, any more than participating in a New England town
meeting or a Quaker meeting does.  In a democracy, we have to protect
free speech and further the participation of the electorate in
the political process, by permitting people to discuss issues in a
public forum without them automatically becoming public figures as
they would be were they elected to an office or published in a
highly paid and widely read periodical.

>Mr. Kayman, your urging of censorship is just as abhorrent as any
>expression of racism.  Please reconsider: accept your responsibilities
>to this great country along with your freedoms in it.  There will be
>things said that you don't want to hear.  You in turn will say things
>that others don't want to hear.  Let's all respect one another and
>merely turn away when we don't like what's being said.

What we don't want to hear *is* censorship.  When somebody tries to
silence others, particularly for discriminatory reasons, *THAT* is
censorship.  Directing hate mail attacks at people can intimidate
them and cause them to leave the discussion.  If you don't like what
I say, respond to the issues.  If, instead, you sent me hate mail
telling me to shut up and calling me obscene names, it will be
obvious to everyone that you are a bigot, cannot argue in a
reasonable or logical fashion, and are attempting to stifle
discussion and censor another person by means of ad hominem attacks.
That is directly opposed to the purposes of Usenet.  If you oppose
the medium, leave it.  If you attempt to destroy it, don't be too
surprised if you are relieved of your access.  Destroying discussions
is no different from destroying the machines that carry them, and
is not likely to be tolerated by those who have worked hard to
permit this system to exist.

>I think you should show your colors, Mr. Kayman.  Are you in fact
>asking for censorship?  Your posting can certainly be read that way.

Mr. Kayman asked for a remedy for censorship.  An attempt was made
to silence a Usenet participant by directing obscene hate mail at
them.  But a recent incident might also shed some light on the
definition of censorship.  When a proposed tv program depicted
violence against a bisexual who was knowingly transmitting AIDS,
a group called ACTUP disrupted filming and forced the producer to
change the script.  The rationale given for this was that only
the government is prevented by the Constitution from censoring
public expression, and ACTUP is *NOT* the government.  Neither is Mr. Kayman.

>I deplore vicious personal attacks and hate mail.  I strongly deplore
>racism of all forms.  Even more strongly, I love our freedoms under the
>Constitution.

I'm so glad you "deplore" everything horrible.  So are the bigots.
So long as our government "deplores" Apartheid, the bigots can
continue to profit from it.  Were our government to OPPOSE Apartheid,
the exploitation and subjugation of human beings on the basis of race,
might become less profitable.

>The senders of electronic hate mail should be treated the same way the
>senders of poison pen letters and the makers of harassing telephone
>calls are treated.  When they break specific laws, they should be
>prosecuted.  Punishment of specific offenses, not broad censorship, is
>the answer.

Senders of poison pen letters and makers of harassing phone calls
can be sent to jail.  It is more difficult to prove an electronic
communication was sent by a particular individual and not forged,
so I know of no case where someone who sent hate mail has been
imprisoned.  It is interesting that you favor criminal prosecution of
anyone sending hate mail, but won't you consider a lesser remedy?
If we had a mandatory death penalty for rapists, it would be even
more difficult to get convictions.  In the interests of furthering
the existence of Usenet, might you consider some lesser penalty for
the many bigots who sent hate mail to Usenet participants?
I would favor a warning the first time, a suspension of access the
second time, and revocation of privileges if there is a third offense.
That means that all sites would have to agree to this, in order to
be able to carry the net, but without some form of discipline
we will continue to have a skewed participation since many women
and people of color have been frightened away or made to feel
unwelcome by hate mail from bigots, and current participation does
not reflect the actual percentage of women and minorities with
access at most large corporate, government, and university sites.
We should act to remedy this situation so that someday some federal
agency does not step in and remedy it for us.  

>Racism cannot, alas, be legislated away.  Neither can it be shouted,
>nor even bullied away.  Teach your children well, set a good example,
>and hope for the best.

Morality cannot be legislated.  Racism can and must be.  The only
way we abolished slavery was through law.  The only way we managed
to integrate schools was through law.  You seem to feel that the
shouting and bullying that intimidates women and people of color
from participating in Usenet is Constitutionally protected, but you
don't want the oppressed to use similar means to defend themselves.
Unless the response is protected to the same extent as the attack,
you do NOT have freedom of speech, nor can you have balanced
discussions.  

Labelling Mr. Kayman's response to the attack on Nancy Gould,
"censorship," and advocating criminal prosecution instead, does
not seem to be a constructive solution.  You can't just hope that
hatred will go away.  Many people in Germany tried that and it
didn't work.  Why not look around you, Mr. Harper, and ask yourself
why there isn't more female participation on Usenet.  Then ask
yourself if you would want your daughters, if you had any, to post
if they would be subjected to hate mail when they did.  Stop wishing
and hoping and deploring, or insisting on only the most extreme
and severe remedies, and try to seek a reasonable solution to a
very real problem that is impeding free and open discussion on Usenet.

--Mark