From: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Zhahai Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: right to have .plan
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:09:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: puddle.19721.2B06AECF
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/93 - Adelante, Boulder CO


 >recently i recieve a complaint about my .plan file
 >which contains quote from the book of isaiah.  one
 >user in my system accuses, "[i was] protelyzing over
 >system."  i consider this as a challege in my freedom
 >of expressing my thought and freedom of religion.

 CB> A complaint about your .plan?  seems kinda far fetched to me.

 Overall, I tend to agree.  But is there a principle that a .plan
 can hold anything?  Obscenity, other folk's credit card numbers,
 racial hate propoganda, material impugning the integrity of others
 (such as might be slanderous or libelous if published)?

 Imagine the exact future analog with multimedia computing: sound,
 pictures, and video.  Anything goes in the multimedia .plan?

 That is, how "private" versus "public" is a .plan file?  In the
 actual environment, is it in effect a type of distributed 
 publishing?  Since its entire purpose is to be fetched by 
 strangers without specific invitation, I think a good case could
 be made that its not in the same category as just having a file
 on one's disk which is accessible.

 Given all this, my current thought is that a .plan should be
 governed more by courtesy and ettiquette than regulation.  If one's
 colleagues are offended by a .plan, then one may or may not be
 considered rude or offensive; as with all courtesy issues, there is
 no absolute truth to be found.  Some people are too easily offended.
 Others are obnoxious and don't know, or don't care.  But in many 
 contexts, people are allowed to be rude, offensive, boorish, or 
 insulting, and in 1992, I think a .plan may be one of them.

 The other side of this is that a complaint against an offensive
 .plan is equally allowed and valid.  It's a tie: the .plan owner
 has a right to their .plan even if it offends others, and the others
 have a right to express their own opinions about it.  That is how 
 most issues of courtesy and interpersonal interaction work; if they 
 get resolved, it is on the interaction level, not the policy level.
 So as sysadmin, I would probably not insult or denigrate the
 complainer, but just tell them I considered it a personal rather
 than policy issue, and that they should attempt to resolve it on
 that basis rather than expect a regulatory solution.  I might point
 out that they have an equal "right" to post anti-bible text in
 their .plan, and that I would likewise refer any complaint about
 that back to the personal level.

 And I would be braced for the shock when future .plan equivalents
 include graphic images which the bible-quoting .plan owner decides
 to complain to me about in turn :-)

 If the problem heated up enough, all parties might have to sit 
 down and agree on an "appropriate cooperative behavior" ethic.
 "I won't post X if you won't post Y, even if we both have the 
 'right' to do so".

 Personally, I think it would be polite not to be overly preachy
 in a .plan, because it is the "first layer" introduction.  That
 is, any warnings and disclaimers which should precede introduction
 of possibly offensive material should be in the .plan, rather than
 the material itself.  So if you want to post dirty GIFs of yourself
 with an ostrich, put them in another file made accessible to those
 who want it, and mention the file along with disclaimer in your
 .plan; keeping the .plan clear is like using a plain brown envelope.
 There is no other layer before the .plan in which to put warnings &
 disclaimers.  But that's just courtesy, not law or regulation.
     ~z~


--  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!104!93!Zhahai.Stewart
Internet: Zhahai.Stewart@f93.n104.z1.fidonet.org
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)