From: barrera@mtu.edu (Barrera)
Subject: Re: Nettiquette or Freedom of speech
Organization: Michigan Technological University
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:24:01 GMT


These little snippets are from a followup to a followup, so I did not 
have a chance to see the original article, so I ask forgiveness ahead
of time if I end up taking Mr. Jin's comments out of context.

: wjin@cs.uh.edu (W. Woody Jin) writes:
: 
: >I think that your logic is somewhat misleading.
: >You may claim your right but not at the expense of other people's right.

What right is that? Maybe it is what you mention in the next paragraph, but
I want to be sure...

: 
: >We have seen on this s.c.k, that someone at upenn is continuously posting
: >numerours unnecessary articles.  You and he may claim that he has a right 
: >freely to do so, but I and many other netters have also rights not to be 
: >bothered by him.   
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You have the right  not to read his articles. you have the right to put
anyone you do not want to see anything from in your kill file. If you
choose not to exercise any of those options then you would have only
yourself to blame. Realistically, the only right you have against being
"bothered" on the net is the right of not being harassed by people 
sending messages directly to your account. Any time you enter into any
kind of electronic "forum" it is of your own volition and should expect
to see opinions and people you disagree with.

: 
: >You've just shown that you are trying to be a police (in this case, a bad
: >police).  Why do you think that only you have the right to speak
: >freely and others don't ?  Don't they have the right to say, "let's all be
: >nice and not upset each other" ? 
: 

Everyone has the right to say whatever they wish. If that person chooses
not to be "nice" that is that person's right. However, that person then
should then realize he or she is responsible for his/her own loss of
credibility. If a person chooses to piss people off, let that person be
responsibile for his/her own doom. 

: >Since every individual person is different, it is unavoidable that everyone's
: >freedom conflicts with each other's.

If you are referring to "Freedom of Speech vs. Right to not be bothered" let
me remind you in this country that right can only be claimed on a personal
level (one's home, consistant harassment directed at one's person rather
than a public forum, etc...)

: 
: >Freedom is only good when exercised without the expense of other
: >people's freedom.

Which freedoms are clashing again? Let me remind you that you are in a 
public forum. If you are bothered at this point it is your own personal
choice by placing yourself into this forum. No one else can be responsible
for your own personal action.

: 
: >How this can be achieved has been already studied by many other smart
: >net people who have many experiences with people like you, and
: >the result is informally called, as you already know, Nettiquette.

Merely guidelines that have been shown to be effective in communicating
nicely. As I said, if one chooses not to follow them, that person is
responsible for others dislike of him/her.

: 
: >It is not an absolute rule set which suppresses your freedom of speech.
: >It is rather a guide on how not to trepass on others' rights and
: >how to resolve when your freedom and other's freedom  conflict.
: 
Again, you have the right to not enter into this public forum. You may not
claim a "Right to not be bothered" here. If you find yourself constantly
bothered on enteringthis forum and do not choose to exercise your options
of using "kill files" and simply skipping articles,then you should exercise
your right to not enter this forum again.


-chris barrera    barrera@mtu.edu   gorim@irc :-)