From: metlay@netcom.com (metlay)
Subject: Re: My Apologies to those I offended
Summary: This is a statement of opinion. It does not reflect Netcom policy.
Organization: Atomic City
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.175817.3825@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dpelton@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dennis Pelton) writes:
>I suggest that we make this part of the FAQ.  Something like this:
>
>[] John Rossi regularly posts inflamatory remarks about sexual,  []
>[] moral, political and other subjects that have nothing to do   []
>[] with synthesis.  Please don't reply, as that only encourages  []
>[] him.  He's harmless.                                          []
>
>It's possible that including a spelling disclaimer might be a
>good idea as well.

You probably couldn't have known this when you posted, Dennis, but the
above is not likely to be needed any more. I hope to speak to John 
over the phone fairly soon about the fallout from this business; he
has mentioned the forfeiture of his commission in the Navy as a possible
result....

Before anyone jumps on me about this, let me say that I am fully
cognizant of the fact that the person who wrote to John's postmaster
and got him into trouble was perfectly within his rights to do so, and
indeed was carrying out the putative responsibility of the
conscientious Netter when faced with disagreeable language on the Net.
I understand the connotations of sexual harrassment that could
reasonably be construed by a strenuous, non-contextual reading of the
offending matter without knowledge of and allowance for the opinions
and attitudes of the poster, and I understand that it is neither
necessary nor appropriate to ask that such a context be considered. I
am also aware of the facts concerning John's use of his account, his
responsibilities to the Navy and Air Force, etc.: more so than anyone
else on r.m.s, and certainly more so than the person who wrote the
letter to his superiors. I understand that usage of Net access is
never a right, only a privilege, and the policing of manners and
etiquette is a serious matter that should not be overly trivialized or
shunted aside.  I know that the ACLU's arguments concerning freedom of
speech do not technically apply to Net discourse, because the grantor
of the access always reserves the right to restrict the actions of
users it deems not in accordance with its aims, whether that is a
sysop pulling someone from the Net because of racial slurs, a user
getting into trouble with the AUVM List Server management because he
or she hadn't realized that sales notices are okay on r.m.s but not on
EMUSIC-L, or a user being evicted from a BBS run by a deeply religious
sysadmin for taking the Lord's name in vain. I am fully aware of all
of these arguments and do not need to be reminded of any of them.

However, I may be witnessing the ruin of a man's life here, a man who
despite his faults is a good friend of mine, and I consider the
actions leading to this situation to be ethically correct but morally
reprehensible. I have read the letters in question, and I believe that
hurt was inflicted on John for the sheer sake of inflicting hurt.  I
will not offer these letters to the public to prove my case; they were
private, and I have deleted them. I have no legal or ethical leg to
stand on for feeling what I feel, just as John has no recourse in the
legal action to which he is about to be submitted. Nevertheless, I do
feel this way. My friend has been hurt, and I have been forced to
watch it happen and forbidden to help him.

That's all I wanted to say.

-- 

michael p. metlay
metlay@netcom.com  

Newsgroups: rec.music.synth