From: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Mike Freeman)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re: nfb bbs censorship??
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:01:59 GMT
Reply-To: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org
Organization: FidoNet node 1:105/126 - Lawson & Reay, Vancouver WA
X-Fidonet: Blink Talk Conference

Index Number: 23316

[This is from the Blink Talk Conference]

In a message to David Andrews <08 Jul 92 22:50> William Wilson wrote:

 > DA> You and others will call it
 > DA> sensorship.  I don't think so.  The
 > DA> BBS is paid for by NFB members for
 > DA> our and others use.  I have
 > DA> no intention to let it be used to
 > DA> attack us.  You all can do it
 > DA> here, on some one elses dime.

 WW> David,
 WW> Censurship is a fairly inflamatory
 WW> term, I'll admit, but at least
 WW> from my perspective, not allowing
 WW> something that is published to be
 WW> allowed on a board is indeed censurship!
 WW> Before you falsely assume I am saying
 WW> you don't have the right to
 WW> do just that on your board though, let
 WW> me plainly say that I sure as
 WW> heck believe I have the right to
 WW> control what is and what is not
 WW> available to my users on my computer!
 WW> I can't imagine me removing even
 WW> an article that was less than
 WW> complimentary to me, should anyone
 WW> actually be crazy enough to write one,
 WW> and I'd like to think that
 WW> instead I would be capable of
 WW> rebutting the article in a form that would
 WW> make me look all that much better, but
 WW> it is, as you said, the NFB's
 WW> board, so they can deal with these things as they wish.

Exactly.  In fact, you are correct; it *is* censorship and, IMHO, it's
justified.  If the article had been a truly carefully-researched
specimen of investigatory reporting, reporting thoroughly on those who
criticized the NFB in the articles, investigating their claims with as
much enthusiasm as seemed to be lavished upon lambasting Dr. Jernigan
and the Federation, I would be the first to advocate that the article be
left on NFBNET.  However, the article was really sloppy journalism and,
IMHO, had/has no place on a BBS (NFBNET) whose purpose, in part, is to
facilitate the spread of NFB philosophy.

Make no mistake; we tolerate free discussion, as I've said elsewhere; we
see little reason for publishing or facilitating the spread of articles
that do not do us justice, especially since they do not explain the
issues involved thoroughly and with objectivity.

Yes, we could let the article appear on the Board and write a long piece
refuting the arguments.  But the piece would have to be a whole book;
we've devoted one issue of the Monitor to the Acosta issue alone (April,
1983).  The questions also arise as to whether many would really be
interested in reading the *whole* story and whether it would *really*
convince anyone.  It seems to me that those who make it a point to
really *hate* the NFB are beyond all reason and convincing.  I'm sure
they feel the same way about us died-in-the-wool NFBers, maintaining
that we've been brainwashed.

Then why do we explain issues from an NFB point of view on this and
other echos?  First, there may be those who really *are* interested in
seeing both sides of an issue.  Second, even if we don't convince anyone
of our point of view, a record is being made here and our side of issues
should get some airing.

So you're absolutely right; it *is* censorship; all SysOps censor what
goes on their boards.  It's just that our taste in censorship didn't
agree with some folks' opinions.

 WW> I am a little disappointed that you
 WW> chose to add to the "NFB
 WW> bashing" claims that have mysteriously
 WW> arisen in this echo again
 WW> though!  David, despite the assertions
 WW> of just a few, there has been
 WW> very little NFB bashing here lately,
 WW> and frankly, until the convention
 WW> took a few participants away, there
 WW> has been alot of NFB philosophy
 WW> expounding!  I know you realize I do
 WW> sort of lean towards the left on
 WW> the matter of censurship, so tell me,
 WW> what would you have me do here?

Nothing.  If you want a clearly free-wheeling echo, you are correct in
just watching the fur fly.  On the other hand, it might be in order to
say something like "Stick to issues, not personalities".  But, as David
Andrews is the SysOp of NFBNET, so you're the head honcho of this echo
and, within FidoNet rules, can conduct it as you deem proper.  This is
as it should be.  (BTW, in your rules for this conference, you ask that
we not discuss your use of the word "handicapped".  Isn't *that*
censorship?)

 WW> If NFB members are going to cry out,
 WW> and in quite brazen fashion in some
 WW> cases, the NFB philosophy behind
 WW> certain issues, I think it is safe to
 WW> say we might expect a likewise
 WW> colorful response from the other side of
 WW> the fense every now and then, don't you agree?

Yup, sure do.  And I'll admit that until this article came out,
NFB-bashing was down to a dull roar.  However, this seems to have
inflamed everyone's passions to the point where assertions are being
made regarding the workings of NFB without proof and we're beginning to
show signs of arguing about personalities, not issues.

Although I have missed some posts, I would maintain that we of the NFB
have refrained from knocking ACB personalities on this Echo; I, for one,
have stuck to issues.  It would seem reasonable, therefore, for those
who adhere to the ACB philosophy and/or who are ACB members or who are
"nonalligned" to do likewise, that is, stick to issues.

I'm not saying that those who do otherwise can't do so; I'm just
pointing out the contrast.

Mike Freeman < K 7 U I J >
... ** If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy folks? **
___ CRR QWK 1.40

--
Uucp: ..!uunet!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!126!Mike.Freeman
Internet: Mike.Freeman@f126.n105.z1.fidonet.org