From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: On limiting posts ...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:30:34 GMT

JCOCURUL@DREW.DREW.EDU writes:
>"Since limits are a kind of
>censorship, which I don't like in nearly any fashion, they are a bad
>idea."

Don't blow a cylinder, but this is still senseless.

Are you trying to say:

"Since limits are a kind of censorship, they are a bad idea.  Also,
I don't like most forms of censorship."

"Since limits are a kind of censorship, they are a bad idea.  Also,
I don't like censorship in nearly any fashion."

The latter example is concerned with different kinds (or fashions) of
liking.  The first example is concerned with different kinds (or fashions)
of censorship.

Jimbo:
>> I don't find this a very satisfactory notion of censorship.
>> What is 'suppression of speech'?  What count as 'various reasons'?
>> Suppose you decided to come over to my house at 3 AM and read the
>> woes of Abraham from Genesis 22 at the top of your lungs.  Would
>> my fervent actions to remove you bodily from my apartment amount
>> to 'suppression of speech for various reasons'?

Joe:
>your criticisms of my editing was warranted, but this paragraph is a
>more of a problem of not understand different degrees of suppression
>of speech.  As noted, limiting what I say is suppressing speech --
>even if I'm yelling obscenities at your daughter.  But, the real
>question is one of degree.  Shouting at your house at 3 AM is not
>really comparable to posting 10 times a day on this newsgroup, even if
>the posts are often ad hominem attacks.  Yeah, what you decribed
>warrants suppression (but it would still be suppression of speech
>since [1] I'm speaking [2] someone is stopping i.e. suppressing my
>speech), since disturbing the peace and the privacy of the home in
>this case warrants it.  Please tell me how this is comparable to a few
>jerks who post stupidity on this list, making up a tiny percentage of
>it, and who we can just delete in 5 sec.?  The point is that all are
>forms of censorship, but all aren't warranted.

O.k., so your position is that all 'suppression of speech' is censorship,
and that some censorship is o.k., since there are other concerns (such
as keeping the peace and keeping private homes private).  

My point is that it makes more sense to reserve the phrase 'censorship'
for just those cases of unjustified suppression of speech.  Otherwise,
what word would we use for those cases?  

>> *ahhhh* Well, I didn't mean the proposal in any serious way.  But
>
>ahhhh, well when we finally get to the nitty gritty you try to beg off
>:-)

?

>> I can give you the precise details of how I would make those
>> decisions, if you really want to hear about it.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>
>go ahead
>
>  -Joe

O.k.  I think that there are a couple of routes this kind of thing
could take.

The first is the method that Val uses on his own list.  Val runs an
unmoderated list, but he does reserve (and has sometimes exercised)
the right to ask people to leave, and to kick them off if necessary.
This seems to work pretty well.

The second is the method that some other lists use, moderation.  Moderation
is a tricky business, in that the quality of the moderator will determine
the quality of the list.  An overly restrictive moderator will clamp down
too tightly on the flow of posts, thus causing the list to shrivel into
nothingness.  An overly lenient moderator will allow too much stuff through.
An ideologically motivated moderator might turn his list FROM a general
discussion of politics TO a discussion of 'liberal', 'conservative', or
'libertarian' politics.

What kind of posts should the moderator NOT publish?  Well, for starters,
and I hate to be too rude, but your original post in this little conversation
was really bad.  You shouldn't have written it and sent it, and a moderator
should not have published it.

--Jimbo

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU