NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/news/admin/policy/825

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 4.1 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: news.admin.policy
Path: sparky!uunet!techbook!jamesd
From: [e-mail] (James Deibele)
Subject: Re: Serdar Argic (was Re: Meanwhile, back at news.admin.policy)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- [phone]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:22:28 GMT
Lines: 65

[e-mail] (dgilbert) writes:

>    I don't know if I would support the idea of simply cutting him
>off.  He is obviously paying (or someone is paying) good money for
>access... but even if the connection were free (say from my machine),
>I don't know that I would want to cut him off.  If someone thinks
>something, no matter how revolting it is to you, doesn't he have the
>right to say it?

I had to deal with this question when I had "Ralph Winston"1 posting from
my machine.  Eventually I decided that since I was paying for the
connection that I didn't need to support him.  If he felt it was so
important to get his message out, he could pay for his own connection to
UUNET.  I didn't need the association that people were making, that by
allowing him access I supported his thoughts.

Everybody here except me gets set up with a disclaimer.  But that
doesn't stop people from making the connection.  There's pretty strict
policies in most organizations about what you can do on company
letterhead and when you can identify yourself as a representative of
that company.  Based on their postings years ago, I have an image of
Portal that I'll never be able to shake.  I didn't feel I needed to be
known as "NaziNet" or whatever.  I cause enough trouble on my own
without needing anyone to help me ...

Yes, people have the right to think something or say something.  I'm
strongly opposed to censorship.  I think it's best that people like
"Ralph Winston" crawl out from under their rocks, so their points can be
refuted by people more knowledgable about the Nazis.  So I was tempted
to allow him to continue posting.  But there's also something to be said
for not helping people spread lies.

There were two questions that decided it for me: I would not have let
"Ralph Winston" use my laser printer to print his pamphlets, not even if
he paid for it.  Secondly, I wasn't sent any core files or any other
nonsense, somewhat to my surprise.  But I received a lot of mail and
even some phone calls from people who either urged me to censor him
or not to.  I didn't have time then (or now) to deal with a discussion
of the freedom of the press, the Holocaust, etc.

It's a serious issue and I felt it deserved to be handled seriously.
Since I couldn't devote the time, I cut posting privileges for "Ralph
Winston" and solved the problem. (Cut the Gordian Knot might be a good
analogy ...)

To bring this posting back to the matter at hand, I think that Serdar
Argic has shown his disdain for netiquette.  As tempting as it to
respond in kind (bombing his feed(s), issuing spurious cancels, etc.),
I think this is a situation where somebody(s) have to decide it's worth
enough of their time that they'll work to isolate Argic.  That means
persuading sites upstream that it's in their best interests to stop
accepting news from "zuma.uucp" or possibly to impose the "Usenet Death
Penalty" and drop anything coming in from "zuma.uucp".

1.  If you don't know who "Ralph Winston" is, he posted revisionist (the
Nazis didn't incinerate the Jews, Hitler was misunderstood, etc.)
postings to the net.  I always put "Ralph Winston" in quotes because
it's not clear to me what his real name is, but I'm pretty confident
it's not "Ralph Winston".  There may even be multiple people behind the
alias, although I think it's just one person.

--
[e-mail]                   "2530 newsgroups & nothing on ..."
PDaXs gives free access to news & mail. [phone] - 1200/2400, N81
Full internet (ftp, telnet, irc) access available. Voice: [phone]