From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 14:20:49 GMT

>In article <1992Aug27.150617.23655@javelin.sim.es.com> 
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
 
>> Every censor everywhere justifies his or her actions as being in the
>> best interest of society, and claims to be doing so for largely
>> selfless reasons. Most censors probably truly believe that this is true,

>Umm...actually, I don't claim that my actions are *good* for anyone, and
>I am *definitely* not acting "selflessly" - I never do.  (In fact, I
>posted to this effect on soc.feminism at one point recently.)

Well, if they're not good for anyone, why do them? Surely, you must have
some benefit in mind, else you wouldn't burden yourself with the work. Nice
to see some honesty regarding selflessness, though.

>> at least of themselves. Nevertheless, censorship is power; regardless
>> of how it is exercised, it will be resented. Therefore it should be
>> wielded with velvet gloves, stealthily, and minimally.

>Now, this is a very interesting thing.  I feel exactly the opposite.  I
>would be *very* suspicious of "stealthy" censorship.  I would much
>rather know exactly what is going on than have someone working
>"stealthily."

Well, of course you'd be suspicious of stealthy censorship, once detected.
The point of stealth is the avoidance of detection. I was referring to the 
goals  of the censor rather than those of the censee. The censor would wish 
his or her actions to be invisible, to minimize turmoil and effort. The 
censee, on the other hand, would want to know who is censoring what, and why.

>> For a moderator
>> to post, especially in rebuttal of posts she so magnanimously passed
>> in the first place,

>*grin*...it is not "magnanimous" to do the job that you agreed to do.
>Do you feel "magnanimous" for doing whatever it is that you do for your
>company?

Occasionally. Actually, the term "magnanimous" was in reference to your
earlier statement that you had passed posts that you disagreed with. In the
context in which it appeared, I had the impression that the message was
something like "...and to show you just how unbiased I am, I've accepted
posts that I didn't agree with. Isn't that magnanimous, and proof that
I'm not biased?"

The comparison between what I feel doing my work, and what you may feel
doing the moderation of soc.feminism is flawed, since I get paid to do
what I'm told, while your moderation is, I presume, a volunteer effort,
and thus motivated by something other than economic necessity. Magnanimity
is probably not inappropriate to describe it.

>[posting]
>> is sheer folly, because it *has* to rankle those
>> who care about the issue of censorship.

>You seem to feel that moderation is censorship.  

That seems to be the general concensus. It may be more polite to call
the process of review prior to publication or rejection moderation,
but since prior to the creation of this newsgroup there were no alternative
means of reaching the audience, it was censorship. It still is, we just
have the equivalent of an underground press now.

>In that case, it is not
>equally censorship whether or not I post?  I posted the same sort and
>quantity of articles *before* I was a moderator.  If I stop being a
>moderator, my posts will still be written and go through the other
>moderators and be posted or not, as appropriate.  Although no one seems
>to understand this, several of my posts have also been rejected (both
>before and after I was a moderator) for exactly the same sorts of
>reasons as anyone else's.

Yes, it is censorship whether you post or not. It is simply more crass
if the censor also publishes, even if she faces the same hurdles as
the rest of us. The process is called conflict of interest, something
that should be avoided - even in appearance - for the sake of credibility.

I'm sure you know that judges and lawyers remove themselves from cases
in which they are personally acquainted with plaintiffs or defendants.
Jurors are routinely excused for similar reasons. It's a very old
principle, dating from Roman times: the appearance of impartiality is 
as important as the action for those in positions of power.

Regards,
       H. Biesel



muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In article <l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>Cindy doesn't post nearly as much as I do and Miriam almost never
>>>posts.  

>>Good for them, I just wish Cindy, at least, would do as you do and not 
>>approve her own posts.

>Actually, she doesn't want to, but her site refuses to send her articles
>to anyone but her.  We're working on this.

>>>[...] Therefore, it seems to me that
>>>your claims that only posts that "adhere to the party line" (i.e. that
>>>we, the moderators agree with) get through is patently ridiculous.

>>Muffy, you aren't the only one that posts to that group.

>Indeed.  And there are posts on more than one side, which was my point.

>>I wasn't one of the
>>people complaining about moderators posting, so I don't know why you are
>>all over *me* about that.

>Well, I was going for the "moderators posting" and the "party line"
>arguments at the same time, since the same example seems to me to
>disprove both of them.

>>I haven't made it into print on soc.feminism yet
>>so I haven't had this problem yet, but what about the people that claim to
>>have had email posted, and when they try and defend themselves, their rebuttals
>>are rejected.

>Well, I vaguely recall something about email being posted, but I am not
>sure what the exact problem/situation was.  However, even if something
>such as posting personal email is done, that doesn't mean that we will
>then post a flame (or other inappropriate article) in response.

>>Please, don't just dismiss it as the word of whiners this time.

>I don't recally dismissing it as the word of whiners before, and I
>certainly have not done so "this time."

>Muffy
>--

>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
>~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
> sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
> But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn