Sender: Bob Turner <•••@••.•••> I noticed you had blanked out the words in someones communication because you felt some people might take offence... May I suggest you go to http://www.xmission.com/~seer/jdksoftware/ there you can pick up a program called the Internet Filter..Version Zero it replaces what is normally considered bad language with xxxxx's. It would do this automatically for you and you wouldn't have to worry about it....and it's free. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: Tim Scanlon <•••@••.•••> It seems to me that Andy tried to do the right thing and spare the sensibilities of people offended by bad language, while retaining the substance of what was being said. Personaly, I don't give much of a damn what sort of words people use. But I also am aware that it's important to be considerate of other peoples belifes and desires. So I try to refrain from it when it might be inapproprite to my communication. It's often a hard call. However, this flame war about it is just plain stupid overblown childish crap. You people want to turn a simple act of trying to do the right thing into some major speech issue. Meanwhile real problems are going by the wayside. It's a waste of energy and time in my opinion. And I really wish everyone would just shut the hell up about it allready. And I do NOT care how Andy edits this, or even if it gets reposted. It's not that important. I also don't care about those who would take offense at my choice of words, OR care much about those cheeering it on as doing the right thing... Wne I signed on for this list I accepted Andy would edit it as he saw fit, and that I might not allways agree with it. That's moderation. If you take all this much beyond all that it seems to me to be a waste of bandwith and energy. Tim @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: Korac <•••@••.•••> On Thu, 26 Oct 1995, Cyber Rights wrote: > Sender: •••@••.••• > Subject: Re: Summary and looking ahead [cr-95/10/19] > > Come on Kurt, nice try, but we are the generation that COULD have retrained > an entire population to a new kind of sensitivy but, sadly, are choosing not > to do it. Instead some of us continue to use hurtful and nasty words for > "shock" value thereby helping to keep them alive and well and their use > thriving for those who use them strictly for their hate value. If we did > not use them and made it known to our children, family, friends and everyone > else we ever talked to that we would not tolerate their use, we could > probably wipe many words out of our society's vocabulary in a very short > time. Unfortunately, this is naive thinking and I know it. > At least you recognize this fact. Similarly, if everyone would just not be mean to each other and share resources, everybody would have food, shelter and a job. Lot of ground between A and B. > Andy made a stab at letting us know he did not approve, but if he were acting > as a true censor, he would have simply cut the words out and left blank > spaces. Instead he chose to use a combination of letters and **'s so that > we all knew what the words were anyway. He gave us all his opinion without > totally censoring and just maybe we could all take a lesson from him whether > or not we think it is appropriate behavior for the moderator of a lis ton > Cyber-rights. > Partial censorship is like partial pregnancy. > As electronic media users and a vast global community that hopes to survive > truly uncensored by the US Government (or anyone else) maybe it is time to > stand up and be counted! Mature adults should be able to recognize > inhumanity to our fellow man and pornography when we encounter it. I can't > help but feel that we need to take some responsiblity for not only our own > actions but those of members of our community. Hold it, maybe I'm wrong, but did you just express hope that nobody will censor us in the future in one sentence and then claim that we should take responsibility for other people's expression in the next?? Censorship is when you apply your standards to anyone but yourself against their will. Its one thing to keep to a sub-net where all participants agree to a set of rules you like and another thing to claim that everyone in the world/internet should censor themselves to your standards. A-ho-el and Prodigy can put in rose colored data filters if they want, but don't force me to use their services. I like my connection raw, unfiltered, sometimes dirty and always interesting. As long as you have the right to use Brady-Bunch-Net, leave the rest of us alone. > It IS possible to communicate > and express an opinion without using certain words for shock value and > punctuation. > Possible, sure, desirable....not always. As long as it is an option and not a requirement there won't be any trouble. There's always something to be said for putting in your own word filter for the communicatively meek and squeamish. > If pictures, names, addresses and home phone numbers had to be on everything > that went out over the Net I wonder how much of a concern censorship would > even be. How much of a problem would child porn (or any generally conceived > borderline porn) be if all the community could easily identify who posted it > and who was downloading it. Anonymity brings out the worst of society and > not the best. Anonymity also is capable of bringing out the best and is very often necessary for any progress to be made. The founding fathers of this country made their views known anonymously under pseudonyms like "Poor Richard"(Ben Franklin) and "Publius"(Jefferson) because they were spouting views and giving information that the authorities of the time would like to have prosecuted them for. I doubt there would have been much of a chance for free expression of unpopular (officially) ideas if they had to log their ID every time they posted something (hence the big ruckus over the "stamp tax" -- basically a fee paid when you posted a bill, ID required of course). Anonymity, like technology, is a double edged sword. It is a tool for expression, only doing the bidding of the user. We need it, we would never be able to stop it anyway. I prefer the acceptance of occaisional abuse over the elimination of yet another means of free expression. Its the price we have to pay to live in a free society --- tolerance of views you find distasteful so that you can spread your own. Anything less than that and we might as well open our arms wide and let big brother usher in that safe,secure police state that would make Singapore look like anarchy. ******************************************************* "Those that give up essential liberty for a little security, deserve neither liberty nor security." - B.Franklin "When ID's are mandatory, its time to leave the planet." - Lazarus Long (a.k.a. R. Heinlein) ******************************************************* @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Sender: •••@••.••• (Allan Bradley) Subject: Boxes I have been reading the postings on Cyber Rights for the last week and I suppose I felt compelled to express a few observations. It is amazing to me at times what constitutes the tunnel vision of people, public issues and government policy perception. I think if Andy wants to play scrabble with a few words - so what, as long as the mature reader gets the author's message and the point. In the scheme of things facing our society just what is it going to matter on how things get expressed as opposed to what they really express. Who should care? Maybe Andy was making an example on a small scale directly or inadvertently for the benefit of all of us. A couple of months ago I had this dream or more like a nightmare. It was about looking into a computer and there was my life inside this box - the computer *box*. Everything I did, everything I saw, everything I heard came from the *box*. The box determined my station in life, it framed my opinion of myself and it told me how I should deal with others. Basically, the box became my external senses and the way I would interact with people around me. What really scared the hell out of me was that this "box" wasn't something I designed nor defined - it was defined for me. It was an artificial computer rendering of my life as perceived by others based on abstract values - values that were in someone's private interest perception - not mine. It was then I wondered where the communications models were or who controlled them and if there were any real public communications distribution rights. Regardless of my possible physiological paranoia. It occurred to me that new technologies which determine access vs. distribution really had the power to define these boxes for society at large - and society at large hadn't a clue. It was a world where personal information that no one really knew existed on who you are would accessible to a few. And maybe these files were made by some pissed-off person and for whatever reason and for the rest of your life, you were carrying around a bunch of baggage that wasn't even yours to begin with and you never even knew it. Imagine trying to get a job or negotiating that salary, when the company or organization your dealing with knows everything you have and everything you want to have, and in a consumer based society that might mean defining the value of who you are. It is all about power. Power is like energy - it never dies, it just moves from state to state. Recently, Andy posted some issues on communications deregulation. It was an issue about power, people and a very profound change in state that will affect everyone. To me it showed a deep and sensitive concern to people and how they may define their future - their boxes. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that the boundary of those boxes from some of the readers of this forum, from what I have read especially on the subject of Andy's wording, seemed to me was already way too small. Allan Bradley ConsulMetrix, Inc. Setting the Standards in Technology Consulting ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by Andrew Oram - •••@••.••• - Moderator: CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR) You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages for non-commercial use, pursuant to any redistribution restrictions included in individual messages. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
