Usenet Gag Order 247
An anonymous coward sent us this link, noting that a judge in Seattle has issued a restraining order barring the defendant from posting in a specific Usenet group, even non-harassing posts. Taking a look at the newsgroup, it looks like one of any number of Usenet flamewars, and the defendant might well meet the definition of Usenet kook (as do the petitioners, it seems). The question is whether anyone should have the ability to use the legal system to exclude another from posting in a public forum; unlike other forms of harassment, a Usenet post is not directed to any particular person.
This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:2)
No matter how offensive or stupid the speech, it's not up to the government to censor it.
This is why there are moderated groups (Score:2)
Spam is unappreciated, but anything else in the ballpark is permissible.
The judge should have ordered that only moderated groups can be held to this kind of standard.
restraining order (Score:2)
Somebody is way to sensitive here (Score:2)
Impossible to police this ruling (Score:1)
Tragic. Silly. And mostly ineffectual, IMO, if the guy wants to persist in being a net.kook.
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:1)
Re:Another fine mess (Score:1)
Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
Who else will abuse this? (Score:1)
--
Re:restraining order (Score:3)
It would seem to be basically the same thing as any other order forbidding contact for some duration, regardless of reason.
Would the prevailing attitude be different if, say, the online vendettas were carried out through the mail? Or in Letters to the Editor for some major newspaper? If memory serves, making threats in either case is frowned upon, legally... and the solution that the courts turn to is not to tell the victims to move or cancel their subscription.
There's a difference. (Score:1)
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:2)
If the defendant moves to a different jurisdiction, the order might not be valid anymore.
Usenet died when (Score:1)
Archimedes Plutonium disappeared.
This is really typical though. Free speech is not much different than free markets. Both depend on just exactly who gets to define the words _free_, and in this case, _speech_. It appears that the judge and plaintiffs get to define words here.
Then again, pre-web, just being on the internet was dues to the Fringe Element of Society Club.
Ah well, just an old codger here, pining for the days of kibology and p-adic insanity.
ciao
it's still different. (Score:1)
what we need- (Score:1)
oh, and first comment!
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:1)
No there isn't. (Score:1)
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
Personally I see this as a judge working outside of the Constitution, just applying what feels good without thought to right, freedom, or the First Amendment.
Re:it's still different. (Score:2)
In that case, then, would it be legal to simply hurl a few thousand unsolicited messages at every unmoderated USENET group every hour for a week, on the basis that nobody is *forced* to read them?
There's more ways to harrass than one. Casting aspersions on a fellow in USENET, for instance, can lead to those messages being not only visible to one's coworkers, but also archived through Deja and such.
And to drive somebody away who *was* a frequent patron of a group is also not exactly kosher. That's still denial of service.
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
It seems a lot like something fishy going on.
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:1)
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:1)
read to the bottom... (Score:5)
The judge's decision is ridiculous as reported in that article, but I'm pretty sure we haven't seen the entire story here. (Not that I'd care to ever see the courts interfere on USENET...)
Umm, he didn't disappear (Score:1)
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
Sure, the person can find another way to insult / flame / harass people - and if caught will find himself in greater trouble.
Bottom line - the government is not trying to regulate the 'net - but saying that actions of its citizens on the net are subject to the same laws that apply to US citizens in other aspects of life. If you make harrassing phone calls, or threatening letters, or turn up at a person's home or place of work - you can be subject to a restraining order - it is no different if they use the net to harass people.
Now - if a US court tried to tell me, an Australian, what I could or could not do in Australia - I would tell then to go away.
Re:No there isn't. (Score:1)
logan
Link to thread (Score:3)
Leanne did not post the requested nudie pic.
Re:it's still different. (Score:1)
Re:No there isn't. (Score:1)
Hmm.. (Score:1)
What I wonder is, why does Shirey have the right to ban this man? Death threats?
Hm. That kind of thing happens on IRC, Usenet, and the like. Coarse language? Yeah, that's there too. I'm not saying I'm wild about any of it, but has anything been substantiated? Has anyone been hurt?
Before we go on a rampage about how our justice is being undermined, let's take into consideration that some people take death threats seriously. In the midst of a Usenet flame war, I'd call it bluster and bravado, but where does one draw the line of harrassment? An interesting question.
However, one has to take Usenet with a grain of salt at times. Flames happen. People disagree. In such a flexible medium, almost anything is possible.
I think Shirey had no authority to make such a ruling on the newsgroup. Postings are owned by the poster or by the newsgroup owner, constituting it a private publication. I'd say this is a violation of free speech.
What can we really do about this though? More stipulations aren't the answer. The gov't has to realize the Internet is sort of an embodiment of freedom itself...
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:2)
A grocery store owner could seek a restraining order nominally barring me from being within a certain distance, if I'd been harrassing it -- such as by attacking customers, or otherwise trying to ruin their business by destructive interference. For instance, protesters are sometimes barred from coming within a certain distance of businesses or clinics they are protesting, due to past behavior.
As for calling France, if I had a habit of calling up random French people at odd hours of the night (for them) and berating them about their cuisine, quite possibly. I don't doubt that stranger things have happened.
Posting, likewise. *shrug*
Re:what we need- (Score:1)
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
Well well well (Score:1)
Re:it's still different. (Score:1)
The so-called victim only has to ignore the offensive poster or posters (either through his supposedly mature mental faculties or through the assistance of common software). I doubt you could argue that preventing the victim from seeing these offensive posts is denial of service when the restraining order has quite the same effect, though with the added side effect of rights violations, unconstitutional legal precedents, etc.
logan
Re:restraining order (Score:2)
Needless to say I think it is wrong for a restraining order to dictate that a person cannot post in a public forum. If they are issuing threats, issue a restraining order against the parties threatening each other through any medium. Period. The USENET is a public forum, and should not be regulated or treated in some "special" way. If something is illegal to say over USENET, it is illegal to say anywhere (and all the more stupid, since it *is* a public forum).
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:2)
Exactly. And if he is ordered by the court not to use the telephone network as a result of his actions, how does that affect anybody elses freedom of speech?
Actually, I wonder if the court order language was specific to newsgroups. Was he posting to news servers using NNTP or to Deja using HTTP? Would it matter? Could a lawyer have a field day? (IANAL)
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Keep Your Wits About You (Score:1)
It is in the nature of government to do this sort of thing. Governments, like children, really cannot help themselves -- they must be disciplined. The only real question is whether the discipline should involve violence. I don't think it is necessary to resort to violence as long as we use the neocortex to generate signal among the noise and inventions that out-flank the limbic programming of the political animals. If we play an instinctive game of argument or violent confrontation, we're on the turf of the political animals and they win. If, on the other hand, we change reality via technology -- the game is on our turf.
Can anyone find the posts? (Score:1)
From the description, it sounded as though it was a fairly typical flame-war, where much is said and little is meant. If that's all it was, I can't imagine that the ruling would hold up under the First Amendment.
If, on the other hand, people were making threats which they seemed poised to carry out, then action may have been warranted.
Has anyone found a copy of the posts in question? I had a quick look but wasn't successful.
The purpose of restraining orders. (Score:3)
Stuff like this is a problem, but there are ways to deal with it. You can use spam filters and learn to ignore flames. If you still are unable to cope, take your conversation elsewhere. There are plenty of privately operated forums that moderate.
Personally, I think censorship is fine when used in private forums where the owner has the right to decide what can and cannot be said through his or her server, but the Usenet is not private. The govenment does not have the power to decide what can and cannot be siad in public communication mediums.
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:1)
Well - I am not a lawyer - but, lets think about this. Any actions I (or any other person, for that matter) do here in Australia are subject to Australian law. But, lets say someone in the US takes a feed of aus.flamebait.stupid.jerks, and then takes offense at one or more of my posts. What legal recourse do they have?
This gets in to aspects of extra-terratoriality, and other huge legal minefields. But, it should be no different to defaming / harassing / whatever via other means. I think we all (except for politicians) know that governments cannot control the Internet - but they can make laws that regulate the actions of its citizens and other people within its borders.
I think that it's fine. (Score:4)
Postings directed to a particular newsgroup may not be targetted at a specific individual, but they are targetted at a community of people formed by the newsgroup's ``regulars''. It's reasonable for these people to want some sort of remedy for someone who is an utter nuisance.
In recent years, groups of individuals have emerged on Usenet whose only intent is to harass. They crosspost on purpose between completely unrelated newsgroups. When someone trims followups, they put them back. They fill their postings with tons of garbage, ASCII graphic crud and whatnot. Clearly, when your only aim is to disturb rational conversation, you aren't expressing your freedom of speech, you are abusing your freedom to curtail that of others.
There are no adequate means of moderation in Usenet (as there is in slashdot), so turning to the courts may be the only way to get peace.
Someone mentioned that there are moderated newsgroups; how little this individual knows how Usenet really works!
First of all, the moderation can be bypassed; you can still post directly to a moderated newsgroup, even though this is obviously highly frowned upon. I have done it once or twice in the past when the moderator's address wouldn't work for me, due to broken software or whatever. Even though there was nothing wrong with my messages---they were the sort that would be passed by the moderator---I received a slap-on-the wrist e-mail not to do that again.
Secondly, newsgroup moderation works by filtering postings through the mailbox of some tireless, tolerant individual who has to sift through everything and decide what gets posted. Thus harassment and spam is simply hidden away from the public and suffered by the moderator.
Thirdly, moderated newsgroups tend to be not nearly as lively as their unmoderated counterparts. For example, comp.lang.c.moderated tends to be dead compared to comp.lang.c.
Ultimately, Usenet moderation (as we know it) is not the answer.
Re:No there isn't. (Score:1)
Re:No there isn't. (Score:1)
The only problem with your assertion is this. If someone were trying to do this to you, I would have just ruined it with this. And people quote a *lot* in usenet. Sure, it would probably be possible to even block out 98% of messages that quote the offending person, but if the person were a frequent poster to the group that could effectively block the entire group. Which brings us back to punishing the victim :(
I Feel So Safe Now (Score:1)
Frankly, what could you expect from a group of people immature enough to get into a flamewar over skiing in the first place? It was inevitable at some point that someone this immature would seek legal assistance to protect their fragile overblown egos from popping from the heat of flamewars that they themselves have caused. While it deeply saddens me to see our rights further limited due to the immaturity and ignorance of the few, I'm surprised it took as long as it did. I do have to commend the participators in the "discussion" for their response to Waldron's post in Shirey's name, though. I'd like to send a big hearty thanks to Mr. Waldron and Detective Shirey, for ensuring my safety on Usenet for years to come. I no longer have to worry about people that disagree with me! Now I only have to worry about not disagreeing with anyone else.
logan
How can they prove it if he does so anonymously? (Score:2)
Of course that would be an extremely loser-ish thing to do. He could also just assume a different alias and write productive, on-topic posts. This would make the original problem go away, but he would still be violating the order.
The point is, they don't seem to be considering the fact that it is inherently impossible to regulate usenet, and that this ruling is basically unenforceable.
--
grappler
Re:No there isn't. (Score:1)
logan
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:1)
Postings directed to a particular newsgroup may not be targetted at a specific individual, but they are targetted at a community of people formed by the newsgroup's ``regulars''. It's reasonable for these people to want some sort of remedy for someone who is an utter nuisance.
Just get a newsreader that can filter out posts from people you don't want to hear from. That way, anyone can have the freedom to post -- a Good Thing(tm) -- and anyone can also have the freedom to not be pestered by an @$$hole -- also a Good Thing(tm).
I don't think we should go around making something a fellony when /dev/null is an easier, more free, and more empowering remedy.
Re:Somebody is way to sensitive here (Score:2)
The usenet posting is the same way. Yeah, you can block it, or you can not read it, but why should you have to? If someone threatens me with bloody death time and time again in a public forum, I'm going to do anything I can to stop them, from filtering to legal redress. (before you say, 'killfile is all you need!' - what about slashdot? you can't filter slashdot posts. If someone followed up to every post of mine with "I will rape your sister and murder you," I'll try my damndest to convince Rob & co. to stop him from posting again.)
people whose only intent is to harass (Score:1)
-->
should these people who only disturb normal conversation not be sentenced in another way?
it could be that some of them have problems emerged from subconscious agressions, and stuff like that
probably this type of troublemaker is just in need for an appropriate psychological treatment?
"known as 'Two Buddha' in this Usenet group" (Score:1)
oh dear (Score:3)
Secure in the knowledge that I had been simply enjoying my right to freedom of expression (as protected specifically by our computer resources user agreement), I walked confidently into the meeting, only to discover that the post had eventually come under scrutiny as potentially threatening.
Of course, the reason they thought it was threatening was because they didn't really understand quoting conventions, and thought I had written the whole thing, including the text I had quoted above the parody.
Still, these people--who do not understand Usenet, and who do not care to--had taken a complaint about my post and decided to act upon it. Had I not been able to convince them that part of the message was a quote, they might have acted on a perceived "threat" (doing what, I have no idea).
It's really scary to see this coming out in a court of law. It was bad enough when a Dean of Students (of a technologically oriented institution) was trying to interpret a medium that she did not really understand, and make a ruling based on that lack of knowledge.
From the DoJ FoF in the MS case, it's clear that at least someone in the Justice Dept can make the effort and learn to understand some of the computer industry. But the justice system is staffed with many individuals, most of whom really don't have to know all that much about computers/Usenet/the "Web"/such things, yet they can make rulings based on these things about which they know so little, and understand so much less.
I'm suddenly frightened. I was so secure in my First Amendment rights. What is a threat? What kind of speech deserves a restraining order? What kind of speech deserves more than that?
Words that I merely quoted in a followup were perceieved as threatening, in combination with words I did post [though I credited the original author of the parody]...
A completely unrealistic "threat" was percieved simply because people didn't understand the medium. Fortunately I was in an informal meeting with someone pre-disposed to believe me. Had I not been, I might be fighting this out in a court of law--with power to resolve resting in more people who don't understand the medium.
Re:Link to thread (Score:1)
That said, the Seattle PD and the judge need to modify the =behavior=, not the =manner= in which it is expressed. Not a bad impulse, but wrong approach. It'll get thrown out on appeal.
A sea lawyer would start a rec.skiing.alpen.flame group, and continue having at it. Duh.
Prior restraint on content (Score:2)
Clearly, this judge does not share either the intellectual capital or political leanings of Justice Brandeis. The notion that a flame war constitutes "fighting words" (which are not protected under the First Amendment) is nonsensical, and certainly unsupported by any empirical evidence that flame wars are likely to cause one of the participants to react with physical violence. In any event, the judges order appears to function as a very broad prior restraint. Statutes the prohibited speech that "stirs the public to anger or invites dispute" have been struck down as constitutionally overbroad. How constitutional can a judge's order that Usenet postings must be "on topic" be?
Clearly the judge's order is not a narrowly tailored, content-neutral, "time, place, and manner" restriction and do not serve a significan government interest. Usenet is basically a wide-open public forum, and the judge's attempt to moderate it is not a "legitimate public function."
Judges get away with this kind of unconstitutional crap because they exercise power in the form of an injunction. If this guy violates it and is held in contempt, he may not be able to raise the unconstitutionality of the judge's order as a defense (see Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307 (1967) (dealing with contempt resulting from injunction under a facially invalid statute). Probably this guy doesn't have the means to appeal the injunction, so he's got no choice but to obey it. Once again, the law works to the advantage of those with power and money.
But it IS different (Score:1)
the text of the parody: (Score:1)
On Top of Tech Tower (Eric Lorenzo 31 Jul 1998)
====================
On top of Tech Tower
With an AR-15,
I shot dead three students,
Two profs and a dean.
The students were all girls [TBS: "Tech Bitch Syndrome": what happens to chicks when surrounded by hordes of slavering geeks just waiting for their turn]
Who had turned me down.
TBS is fatal:
Now they're underground.
The profs had both failed me,
When I should have passed.
And I shot the dean 'cause
He's a great big dumb-ass.
I shot them with pleasure,
I grinned as they died.
And then I ran off to
The mountains to hide.
The cops they did catch me,
And they did so well.
I wrote a confession
Signed George P. Burdell.
Re:restraining order (Score:2)
I don't think this sounds too different from a normal restraining order.
The difference is the place. In real life [tuxedo.org] restraining orders are necessary because there is nothing you can do to prevent being accosted.
On the net, this is what kill files are for.
If the individual resorts to mailbombs or proves able to evade a well constructed kill file (they rarely are) you apply pressure to their provider:
If the law was used as a last resort, it would be directed against the provider, not (directly) against the user.
Can anyone think of additional methods that might be used before the law? (In addition to switching to a more modern forum with karma and moderation (like Slashdot)).
sklein
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
It is always wrong to fall back on violence (and the law is based on violence) because technology fails. If you think the usenet does not offer an enviroment for discussion with enough protection against assholes, go elsewhere. The net is full of mailinglitss, www-boards and alike. Slashdot proves that building a moderation system that works well enough for most of us IS possible.
I left the Usenet for this reason, a while later I found slashdot. Now I'm happy.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:2)
The police are there to prevent people from getting physically beat down, not to prevent people from communicating. Possible intent is no excuse for violating someone's rights.
Anyway, the whole thing is irrelevent --- no US court has jurisdiction over Usenet.
Re:Link to thread (Score:1)
And that's over just four days...
Re:Another fine mess (Score:1)
Pun intended?
Re:no different (Score:1)
Re:This is absolutely ludicrous.. (Score:1)
or something.
I always thought that was sort of outlawed by that pesky little thing called...um, what was it?
Oh yeah.I remember. the First Amendment to the Constitution.
I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
the text of the parody: (Score:1)
On Top of Tech Tower (Eric Lorenzo 31 Jul 1998)
====================
On top of Tech Tower
With an AR-15,
I shot dead three students,
Two profs and a dean.
The students were all girls
Who had turned me down.
TBS is fatal:
Now they're underground.
The profs had both failed me,
When I should have passed.
And I shot the dean 'cause
He's a great big dumb-ass.
I shot them with pleasure,
I grinned as they died.
And then I ran off to
The mountains to hide.
The cops they did catch me,
And they did so well.
I wrote a confession
Signed George P. Burdell.
So it's a parody of "On Top of the Schoolhouse/ all covered with sand/ I shot my poor teacher/ with a big rubber band" (and all of her more gruesome fates in further stanzas). If this can be taken as a threat which needs to be acted upon...then a lot more can be "threatening" also.
Moderated groups... (Score:3)
Re:This is why there are moderated groups (Score:2)
I don't know the details, but if this fellow was threatening or harassing people, a restraining order is probably reasonable. Societies' right not to have to put up with morons overrules individual freedoms.
Dana
In related news... (Score:3)
Some facts (Score:2)
1) No member of the newsgroup went to the police for help. The police were informed by a member of the Australian government, who was concerned by the nature of the posts. The police, after reading the posts from both sides, decided whom they wanted to contact. It was not Mr. Abraham (the guy to whom the court order was issued).
2) The order did not only restrain Mr. Abraham from posting to one specific newsgroup. It also included a 1000 foot restaining order and an order not to contact one of the "petitioners," just as any other harrassment suit.
3) Mr. Abraham was not the only one censured, but he was the only one ordered not to post. All other parties were warned not to post to the newsgroup, or at least to keep all posts strictly on topic.
4) This was not an ordinary flame war; independent readers (particularly an Australian govt. employee) felt the posts were serious enough that they may have eventually led to actual physical violence. I believe it is safe to assume that these posts were no longer about skiing.
5) Nothing in this article gave any facts about the nature of the posts, except in the form of opinion of the detective involved. One might imagine that, given the extremely biased nature of this article (and I believe this bias is abundantly clear), the article would offer evidence defending the respondant, if such were available.
Personally, I would like to see more information about the specific posts for which Mr. Abraham was censured. I find it difficult to make a decision about a specific case when I do not know the whole story. So unless those posts are made available, I can only assume that the judge, who did have all of the information, made the correct decision.
Killfiles are not the correct answer to threats (Score:2)
I, as a reader and USENET contributor, care about my life. I don't want to miss potential, credible threats to my life and property with an improper setup of my killfile. I want to know what is happening around me. Heck, I even care about my reputation. I don't want to miss a smear because the smearer is in my killfile.
My rule-of-thumb summary: a killfile should be used only to remove the killjoys from your life, not the killers.
Usenet vs. everything else (Score:4)
Slashdot proves that building a moderation system is easy within the confines of a single web site where everyone is authenticated, and the information isn't distributed across a wide area. You could do the same thing with a single private NNTP server with authenticated access, and kill files.
Usenet is a world-wide distributed system, with many points of entry and countless users who aren't tracked in any way. The problems to be solved there are entirely on a different plane.
IMHO, what Usenet needs is a protocol for sharing killfile information among like-minded individuals. Killfiles are far better than Slashdot-type moderation because they are content sensitive, and can be made quite specific, like ignoring a particuliar user, or even news server. Scoring newsreaders can assign a score to each article based on multiple filter criteria, similar to slashdot scores. Killfiles and scoring scale nicely, because they are processed at the client side. What you need is to be able to share ``kill packets'' with other users. Instead of having one huge moderation system, you have a disconnected model. There is no need for there to be one monolithic moderation database which appears identical to everyone, so it would be a waste of resources to try to construct one.
Slashdot doesn't compare to Usenet. I find that you can't have meaningful threads of conversation, and then sense of community just isn't here! Topics keep being thrown in, then some fast exchanges ensue and die out in favor of the next topic. Also, the graphically-intensive layout sucks, and you have little choice in how it's presented, since there is no protocol here other than HTML. Also, Slashdot can't even be viewed properly unless you use non-free software like Netscape or Internet explorer. Last time I tried Mozilla, it blew up on Slashdot. Maybe the latest milestone does a better job, who knows! On the other hand, Usenet participation requires only free software, like tin, trn or slrn.
Also I find that the Usenet technical forums tend to provide very good quality answers (if you are willing to sift through the rubbish a little bit). From time to time you see postings from people like Dennis Ritchie, Chris Torek, Torvalds, Bjarne Stroustrup, Andrew Koenig, Doug Smith (of ACE fame) and many others. Yes, these guys are on Usenet, not on some web bulletin board. And they use their real names, not some 3l33t pseudonyms.
If you try, you can find far higher calibre discussions on Usenet than in Slashdot. The most interesting aspect of Slashdot are the links to outside stories. I know people that don't even bother reading the replies to a story, and just follow the links from here on out.
Risks to anonymous posters (Score:2)
This should serve as a lesson to everyone. Your free speach is limited from using fighting words. Physical threats over the computer CAN be criminal if they are believed to be real.
If you use USENET to harass others and threaten others, you are STILL subject to the extension of the law. This is not a regulation of cyberspace, this is the existing regime to protect victims being applied to the Internet. This is in no ways unreasonable.
If he hadn't made any physical threats, nothing would have come from this. This serves as a lesson: use free speach for rational discourse, or irrational insults, but when you cause fear in others, you have overstepped your bounds as an honest citizen using free speach to a potentially dangerous individual intent on harming otehrs.
Re:This is why there are moderated groups (Score:2)
Besides, I see this matter rather more like banning a rude/drunk/idiot from a business establishment. If I'm making an idiot of myself in a bar or a restaurant, the manager can call the police and have me removed. If I keep going back and making a nuisance of myself, they can probably ban me and have a judge prevent me from returning. This isn't censoring my right to free speech or thoughts, it falls under the public nuisance areas of law. My suggestion is that this whole incident falls under that category.
Dana
How charming. (Score:2)
At the same time, I have to admit that usenet communities can be disrupted by 'speech'. For instance, see Russ Albery's Rant [xnet.com], which relates to disruption of newsgroups by spam and automated spewing by computer programs. There are also groups such as the meowers and alt.syntax.tactical which primarily intend to disrupt communication, and I've seen important useful groups rendered unusable by such attacks.
I would say that as long as the balance of the legal situation is even, it'll be OK. I could really _support_ legal banning of HTML newsposting on the grounds of MIME executables being attached
Lastly I would question the sense of considering 'death threats' (short of Secret Service involvement in Presidential ones, which is their job), considering that many Usenet kooks are mentally about 12 and certain that they bear no responsibility for their wild statements- and considering that there are entire groups, such as alt.flame, in which the _point_ is to cause as much verbal damage as possible. In this context, assuming 'public community' rules is absurd, and counterintuitive. Do you arrest a Bible Belt evangelist for intentionally trying to disrupt alt.satanism or alt.wiccan or alt.atheism? Maybe you'd better, if you're going to be imposing penalties for disrupting Usenet at all.
Re:No there isn't. (Score:2)
Daniel
WSU administration and harassment... (Score:2)
Following a flamewar on alt.religion.universal-life in which I posted a link to a domain name's administrative contact information (through nsi.com's whois) the targeted party recieved numerous calls that resulted not from that post, but an anonymous post under false pretenses to another newsgroup containing that phone number.
I was found guilty of harassment for providing information on how to access that publicly accessable document. So I assumed the "administrative position" (duck and grab ankles) and gave up my @wsu.edu email for the summer.
My account reactivation was delayed for two weeks because one of the officials (cough**cough**cBoIuGgGhOT!**cough) tought that it was inappropriate use of my unix account to host this student group's site [dhs.org]. There was no complaint ever associated with the page. Yet the administration felt that they had the right to restrict my speech in order to "protect" me from "inducing a liability" on to myself (i.e. I would be liable for anything that appeared on that page, any complaints on that page would be complaints against me).
I ran headlong at this one, contacting the Ombudsman and attending a moderated meeting with upper administration. They rolled over and gave me a verbal appology (no official statement). Part of the run-arround was that upper administration acted on "policy" that IT officials had no jurisdiction to invent. IT in fact had no said policy and I have yet to meet with said IT official's boss to discuss the event.
Once again the stink caused the administration to draft some more "policy [wsu.edu]". Now students are supposed to link to a copyright and a disclaimer off of their home pages. Want to bet noone's done that yet? The new "policy" also is rendered practically useless. It says "WSU does not restrict the contents of electronic mail of staff, faculty, and students or the contents of faculty, staff, and student individual World Wide Web (Web) pages linked to the official WSU Web pages beyond the restrictions inherent in complying with the law."
Interestingly it is a state law [wa.gov] that no student of WSU may harass another individual in any way [wa.gov]. Harassment, anything that is "anoying, disturbing or perturbing," is definedly quite broad! Here [ucla.edu] is a good site covering the legal theory surrounding such issues. Basically it supports restricting one-to-one speech to prevent harassment, but determines that one-to-many speech should be protected as free speech.
An importaint distinction should be made that I'm not sure the author covers. Newsgroup postings are a one-to-many medium, but the comments may be directed to (or at) an individual. In this way should criticizing an individual be considered harassment? What about warning others that you think this individual is bad news? "Harassment" says the WSU administration, and a violation of "student conduct."
So... don't like the postings of a WSU student? Complain to abuse@wsu.edu and they're screwed!
Too bad WSU's policy isn't like WWU's [wa.gov] or UW's [wa.gov]; even CWU's policy [wa.gov] is more lenient! Looks like EWU [wa.gov] is in the same boat that WSU is in.
No, no, you misinterpret... (Score:2)
Unless you're one of the government representatives making excuses for what Microsoft has always done and will continue to do, it was _not_ a veiled insult at you. It was a rather unveiled insult at the integrity of Washington State legislators and representatives >;) really, I have a great deal of contempt for these ayn-rand-thumping maniacs. What is best for Microsoft IS NOT best for the people. I'm sorry you mistakenly were offended at a remark that was not directed at you- suppose I should have been blunter. I'm not sorry about hinting that MS would love to get a tame senator or cop to try arresting people for 'slander', because I am sure they'd love to do that if they had any chance of succeeding. Perhaps they'd like to start on me, by banning me from Slashdot for expressing my opinion of, not things they have done, but what I believe they'd like to do
Bruise my ego will ya?!?! (Score:2)
Starting a precedent for the legal moderation of newsgroups because the collective AOL-lusers couldn't write a killfile to save their lives, you think is a good idea.
Not to mention its completely unenforcable, I think those who oppose this should create 'Two Buddha' accounts on free Usenet servers and start posting to prove that Usenet will always = anarchy.
Its pretty obvious they didn't want a kill file, and he just flamed the wrong guys. That flamees being clueless twits with a huge bruised egos and a lawyer.
"Buffy dearest, we're just not gonna stand for this abuse, get Judge Smith on the phone."
The judge is outside his jurisdiction (Score:2)
The Internet is a new frontier (for them), one which is beyond their current jurisdiction, and since they are accustomed to power, one in which they will try to gain the same might as they have in the physical world. This was just an early shot. In due course, I expect that it'll get quite ugly.
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
Ultimately, Usenet moderation (as we know it) is not the answer.
IMO, you're vastly mistaken. The current advice on new.admin.net-abuse.usenet is filter, killfile, ignore. In fact, the best filter is the one between your ears.
Trolls don't grow if they don't get fed. Flamewars don't exist if there is only one side. Even the most persistent of kooks will go away if you ignore them long enough.
Oh, sure, that isn't as clean and neat (and let's face it, gratifying) as bouncing them out of a news.group.
But maybe some day the shoe will be on the other foot, eh?
James
Re:Some facts (Score:2)
2. ok
3. ok
4. The austrialian government's opinion in a Seatle case shouldn't matter, this isn't global terrorism regardless of what they want you to think. I doubt Scott Abraham was ready to hop a Quatis and blow up the Sydney Opera House.
Regardless how mean the messages were a killfile doesn't care. Not that they were willing to use one, but instead got into an immature fight that eventually led to legal action, bringing Big Brother that much closer to home.
Re:Usenet vs. everything else (Score:2)
BUT, don't let love blind you. Sometimes even the best things don't work, and, I believe, the Internet just go to big for the Usenet. There is too much shit around today for one system to ever play the role it did.
Yes, the usenet is a great thing in theory, and was indeed great before the spammers and the flamers and assholes and the aolers. But think about what you are saying when you advocate letting authoritarian law, backed by violence, come in and take over its freedom. Is that a price that is really worth paying? Would a Usenet run by gag-orders and threats of lawsuits, with lawyers and police reading every discussion be anymore like the Usenet you love than the alternatives that are around today?
As for slashdot, I agree that this is completely different. Slashdot is a good place to read some intelligent comments on a the daily web stories, and maybe get your own opinion on them heard. Its very different from Usenet, but on the other hand, it does work. Without Police intervention and gag-orders.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
Re:"known as 'Two Buddha' in this Usenet group" (Score:2)
To the extent of my memory, I have never posted anonymously to anything. Usenet, mailing lists, webboards, slashdot, whatever. I see other people doing so, and on a certain level it amuses me. I have never been burned for doing so, which may just mean I am lucky. Or maybe I have a higher built-in tolerance for hitting the delete key, and just ignore some stuff that might set other people off.
Brief aside: The only guy that has ever really bothered me was some joker that kept spamming everyone @osu.edu. Every last time I asked him to stop, following carefully the instructions in his mail, his account autoreplies another spam to me. I have had 4 of his isp accounts cancelled, he never learns. heh
Anyway, I do not intend to ever post anonymously, my opinions are mine and everyone should know they are mine. Everyone should be able to reply to me, personally or publically, the same as if I were standing face to face with that person. The fact that some others have a problem with that, or are scared of it for some reason, is amusing, and kind of sad.
Read The UseNet Thread...There's More To This (Score:2)
Bad Command Or File Name
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
Re:Bruise my ego will ya?!?! (Score:2)
She.
"Buffy dearest, we're just not gonna stand for this abuse, get Judge Smith on the phone."
The lawsuit was not brought by the flamees. Did you even read the article? You don't need to answer that, actually, it's pretty obvious..
The question is not quite as simple as you think; it's more the question of whether I can stand in a public place and yell curses and threats at passers-by. [1] Which is a hotly debated (and debatable) topic I believe, but not merely a question of a clueless judge trying to censor 'The Evil Internet' because she doesn't get it.
Daniel
Re:Bruise my ego will ya?!?! (Score:2)
The judgment was based on petitioners, so yes it was brought about much like a lawsuit. Maybe I can hold your hand and we can read the article together.
But, but, but........ (Score:2)
If the authorities wish, they can arrest him for the actual threats, etc. posted to the Usenet, but banning him from posting altogether is exercising their control to an unacceptable extent. The powers that be (politicians, judiciaries, etc.) are authoritarian by their very nature. Give them an inch (of our freedom) and they'll take a mile.
But anyway, what you said makes it sounds as though you would rather him arrested than not allowed to post to one newsgroup! If he's in jail, he probably won't get to post to any newsgroups at all
Dana
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
Re-reading my posting again, it's painfully clear that I wrote about moderated newsgroups, not about self-moderation methods like kill-files.
Kill-files work well, but are not perfect. Some of the most annoying Usenet pests are work hard at find creative ways to keep escaping kill filters. They change identities, subjects, styles. So your file grows longer and longer. I've seen some who start by being completely annoying in a random way, but later adapt to the style of a newsgroup and start being specifically annoying within the subject of discourse.
In the past, I have resorted to having to killfile by news server, which was not a decision I enjoyed making. It is very effective at filtering out annoying individuals, because they can't change news servers as easily or frequently as the characteristics of their postings.
Another problem is that kill fitering is done on the client side. For any sort of filtering to take place, your reader has to download at least the headers. But filtering out some crap requires message bodies as well. This is less of a problem these days because connections have gotten faster, but not for everybody.
Also, while on the topic, I don't believe that litigation is the answer: I said that ``it's fine'' in response to the earlier postings that were crying censorship. The gag order, however extreme, is not a form of censorship, in my view. Posting to Usenet is just a form of public expression. People get dragged into court for speaking and writing in traditional forums; there is no reason to expect to be able to do anything you want in Usenet and harass people with perfect impunity. I hope that this incident sends out a message to the kooks and harassers that they are not beyond the reach of the law.
'Two Buddha' was a nickname, not anonymous (Score:2)
More background on the case from same source (Score:2)
Re:Can the Gov. even do it? (Score:2)
Go down to Title 10, Chapter 14:
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not a legal opinion.
Re:Can anyone find the posts? (Score:2)
Living under the threat of death [deja.com]
Re:No, no, you misinterpret... (Score:2)
To take a particularly conservative example, Senator Slade Gorton doesn't just represent M$ over its competitors, he also represents Boeing over their competitors, logging and farming over and enviromental interests, state fishing over tribal interests. Basically, he's a right-wing fucker; my point is that he's a right-wing fucker across the board, not just a right-wing Microsoft fucker (fuckee?). When it comes down to it, he gets things done for Washington State, and I suppose that's why he continues to win elections.
Don't think that the congressmen around the country who go after Microsoft are doing so because they care about quality software. They are doing this because they've been told it will benefit their state's businesses. If their state's businesses happened to be large and predatory, they would still represent their interests to the best of their abilities, kickbacks or no. Each side represents its own.
Re:Usenet vs. everything else (Score:2)
Try turning on Minimalist Mode in your Slashdot preferences, and turning off graphics. That's how I browse Slashdot, and it makes the site into a collection of simple text pages.
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
Without backing by force, laws become mere suggestions.
Note that acting in concert with the law is not the same as obeying it. The reason that I don't go around killing people is not that it is illegal; it's because I just don't want to. But if your decision to do X is predicated on the fact that "X is the law!" then either you're naive enough to believe that the legistature knows best, or you want to avoid the state's penalties - all of which ultimately rely on its armed agents taking your stuff, locking you in a cage, or killing you.Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
Yes, people do break the law without firearms getting involved. Those people don't get caught. Those who do get caught are subject to punishment, which they accept or they are subjected to violence.
Obedience to the law does not come from doing what you think is right (which also happens to be legal). Obedience to the law arises when someone does not do something that he is inclined to do because it is against the law. He/she subjects his will to the law because to do otherwise is to risk violence to his person or property. Those who obey the law do so under the explicit or implicit threat of violence. The state has, for better or worse, arrogated to itself what amounts to a monopoly on the use of force to coerce conduct. If you believe otherwise, then the matrix has you.
"Are you suggesting bad laws would be better if police were unarmed? Or good laws would be worse if everyone was armed?"
Neither. Although I occasionally do find myself wondering whether we would have or need as many laws as we have if everyone was armed. Particularly if those armed individuals were known to keep themselves informed of the voting records of their elected representatives.
Re:This is why there are moderated groups (Score:2)
Lea
Re:I think that it's fine. (Score:2)
Do we need law to deal with the arsonist? Not really; we can imagine a group of concerned vigilantes taking care of the problem. What we do instead is hire others to handle the problem. If the laws are good, our hired vigilantes (the government) follow a code (the laws) that results in them doing a more effective, efficient, ethical, and fair job than if we did it ourselves. I don't think that's the case today; law and law enforcement is monsterously unfair (look at the racial composition of our prisons, or the sentencing guidelines for drug crimes), largely unethical (we continue to imprison people for acts that harm no one, while the white-collar criminals who do the most harm get off), and often ineffective.
Re:Bruise my ego will ya?!?! (Score:2)
Ah but the magic here is THEY can use a killfile too.