From: dkemper@oolong.hacks.arizona.edu (David Kemper)
Subject: Re: why don't all you star wars fans get a life
Organization: University of Administrative Incompetence
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:16:12 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-a4  
Reply-To: dkemper@hacks.arizona.edu
Distribution:  world
X-Posted-From: oolong.hacks.arizona.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1g8vqiINNo36@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, tlg4@po.CWRU.Edu (TJ Goldstein) writes...
>In a previous article, dkemper@oolong.hacks.arizona.edu (David Kemper) says:
> 
>>First came the article insulting Star Wars.
>>
>>Let's examine this for a minute.  The poster of that article obviously 
>>wasn't going to change anyone's mind by posting it.  He wasn't going to 
>>make anyone on this goup throw up their hands and say "You're right!  What 
>>a stupid movie!  I can't believe I've wasted my life like this!" and then 
>>sell every Kenner toy they own.  Plus, by posting it on the Star Wars 
>>newsgroup, he knew that the reaction he'd get would be massive flaming.  
>>That, quite obviously, was his goal.
> 
>Actually, I thought that most of the responses were amusing and
>delightfully cutting, not to mention intelligence.

True, in some cases, but while they amuse you they also amuse the original 
poster, which is probably what he was after: cheap kicks from getting 
flamed left and right.  Someone sent me mail calling such posts 
"flame-bait," and that seems as good a term to me as any.

>>In article <SS.92Dec10165835@bigwpi.WPI.EDU>, ss@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Scott Streeter) writes...
>>> 
>>> )Just thought people would enjoy knowing that Mr. Kopacz has been
>>> )locked out of his account and will be talked to by the management of
>>> )Lehigh University about his actions.
>>> 
>>>sfd> This sucks.  Sure, it was on obnoxious message, but don't you think
>>>sfd> turning off his account is just a *little* bit fascist?
>>
>>No, it's a lot fascist.  I don't really like to flame people, but in my 
>>opinion Scott has shown himself to be a bigger jerk than the original 
>>poster.  Maybe you don't agree with his views, but is that any reason to 
>>violate his freedom of speech?  What's next?  Do you mail the sysop of Dan 
>>Shoham because you don't like his theory of how a lightsaber is powered by 
>>the Force?
> 
>Scott was not the cause of Kopacz losing his account.  If I were to
>take an insulting message and send it to an administrator, it would
>not cause that individual to lose his account UNLESS HE HAD VIOLATED
>THE RULES OF HIS SITE.  Mr. Kopacz knowingly did just that.  As I 
>tell both my child and my students, it is only YOUR actions that can
>cause you to get into trouble.  If you CHOOSE to break the rules,
>then you must accept the consequences.

Okay, never mind for a minute that none of us KNOWS the rules at his site; 
let us assume that they were indeed broken.

Many schools have rules that state that their machines can only be used for 
class-related work.  Anyone who posts to this group from such a site (other 
than the occasional "I need such-and-such info from the trilogy for a 
paper" posts) is breaking the rules at that site.

Scott took it upon himself to "police" the net, informing the 
administartors of a post that he personally didn't like that originated 
from their site.  In order for him to be fair, he should send mail to the 
sysop of EVERY post that comes from a .edu site, informing them how their 
resources are being used.  Then it would be up to the individual sites to 
enforce their rules if any applied.  Instead, Scott chose to single out one 
post because he didn't agree with it.

>>Disagreeing with someone is one thing.  Punishing them for expressing 
>>unpopular views is quite another.
> 
>Again, no-one is punishing him for exoressing unpopular views, but
>for using profanity on the net.  I'm sure that his administrator
>agreed with his stance on Star Wars.  

True, the site administrator is the one guilty of censorship.  True, they 
were within their legal rights to take the actions they did (assuming the 
existence of these anti-profanity rules).  However, if one assumes that free
speech is a Good Thing, then the rules themselves are Bad Things, even 
though they don't violate the First Amendment.

>>If I had $1 for every time someone's freedom of speech rights were violated, 
>>I'd be thousands of times richer than you.
> 
>I said it before, and I'll say it again.  Mr. Kopacz's right to throw
>a punch stops at the tip of my nose.

In other words, do what you want as long as it harms no one else.  I think 
you'd be awfully hard pressed to show how that article, rude and insulting 
as it was, actually caused anyone any harm.  Being offended by something is 
not the same thing (despite what some current lines of political thought 
may try to tell you).

Since this thread has strayed a bit from the topic of this newsgroup, I'd 
urge anyone who wishes to reply to do so via e-mail.

--Gallandro

    "Take it easy, kid.  It's only a movie."   --Ham Salad, "Hardware Wars"
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars