From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Susan Garvin Posts Private e-mail
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 18:30:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.084348.17804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Apr11.183238.9244@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
>><1992Apr7.002431.20509@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Apr2.054719.10599@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) said:
>...
>>>As for "reasoned justice"...  this situation doesn't
>>>quite fit into our current legal system.  However, we can mimic the system
>>>to a degree.  We can use a "jury of his peers" to determine "guilt" or
>>>"innocence".  In fact, we have used a jury of his peers.  We have all
>>>examined the evidence and the overwhelming "verdict" is:  GUILTY.
>>
>>What about jury selection? What about rules of evidence? What about adequate
>>representation? What about swearing oaths? What about striking immaterial or 
>>irrelevant evidence? What about holding a closed session to discuss delicate 
>>matters? What about controlling publicity and carefully choosing venue? What
>>about detailed instructions to the jury?
>
>What about them?  I said we could mimic the system to a degree.  I then
>defined that degree.  I don't for a moment believe we could approximate
>our judicial system on the net.

Without the appropriate controls, "mimicking" the court system is likely to
cause more harm than good. 

>>>No one is lynching him - his account hasn't been removed, there is no
>>>boycott.  He was judged by the masses on the net based on the evidence
>>>supplied: his claim of ethical behaviour and the direct contradiction
>>>enclosed in his mail.  We are all a little wiser now.
>>
>>We were ALREADY wise before the breach. The only thing that changed was that
>>people's voyeuristic/prurient inclinations were indulged, 
>
>Yeah, and it was good for us all.

Pleasurable, maybe, for some. "Good"? That's highly debatable. Don't get me
wrong - I don't have anything against pleasure, in general. But pure hedonism
simply isn't a feasible way to run a society. There have to be limits on
pleasure, especially when one person's or group's pleasure can mean 
extreme DISpleasure to another person or group. That's where we get into
rights and responsibilities. I think Welch's privacy rights were violated
for no better reason than satisfying the curiosity and/or prurient interests
of the group. And that's INsufficient justification, IMO.

>>                                                          and emotions were
>>encouraged to rage beyond the bounds of objective reason. For some reason,
>>most people posting to this group apparently see this as a Good Thing. Go 
>>figure...
>
>Well it seems that you have more of a problem with it then K Welch ever
>did.  He apologized and we were willing to drop it in quick order, except
>for your defense which kept things going for some time now.

And your defense of Susan's confidence-breach? Aren't those keeping things 
"going" also?!?!?!?

Sheesh! It never ceases to amaze me how easily people can be blind to their
hypocrisy when attacking an unpopular poster...

								- Kevin