"YesMan" ) writes:
An alternative Primer on Net Abuse, Free Speech, and Usenet
Dave Hayes


------------------------------

Subject: 0. Table of Contents

1. Introduction
1.1) What this document is
1.2) Prerequisites
2. Background
3. Basic Definitions
4. Basic Philosophies
4.1) Declaration of Free Speech
4.2) What is 'True Free Speech'?
4.3) What is 'net abuse'?
4.4) What is Censorship?
4.5) What is filtering?
4.6) What is a Dishonorable ISP?
5. Frequently Debated Windmills
5.1) Arbitrary notions of "net abuse"
5.2) The fallacy of "harm"
5.3) The existance of the Cabal
5.4) The uselessness of reputations
5.5) The bludgeon of ownership
6. A response to the "Alternative View" of this
"Alternative View"
7. Viewpoints, Case Histories, and Stories
7.1) One user's viewpoint of net history and politics
7.2) An excerpt from the alt.sex.sounds FAQ
7.3) Those who do not share the anti-spam zealotry
7.4) On the nature of Usenet
8. Credits and Revision History


------------------------------

Subject: 1. Introduction

1.1) What this document is

This document represents an ongoing attempt to educate people about
true freedom of speech among the emerging cyber-communities. There is
a companion document to this, the USENET Site of Virtue FAQ, which
should be read AFTER this document.

1.2) Prerequisites

If you don't know what Usenet is, you're reading the wrong document!

Go look in the newsgroup news.answers for appropriate introductory
documents. There are many, and each has their own point of view. In
order to understand the discussions here you should be familiar with
USENET in general, and have a reasonable amount of experience posting
and/or reading news.

If these documents are not in news.answers or news.announce.newusers
on your site, they can be had by anonymous ftp from rtfm.mit.edu in
the directory /pub/usenet-by-hierarchy/news/announce/newusers.

If you have a WWW browser, the following URLS should help you out:



It helps to be familiar with news administration, how news works
in general, and have kept up in some discussions on news.admin.*,
but this is not totally mandatory for understanding this document.

Also, you should believe that no expression, however annoying,
profit-oriented or counterproductive, should be prevented from being
distributed. If you do not believe in this way, this document will
probably make you angry. (If that's what you want, then read it.)

The generic opposing document to this one is located at:

http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html

Readers interested in the opposing viewpoints may wish to look at this
URL for reference.

If you wish to see what flaming in FAQs is like, read the document
that tries to respond to this document:

http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/davehayes.html

See section 6 for a cute irony to this document.


------------------------------

Subject: 2. Background

For a long time, I've been a loud advocate of free speech in most of
the USENET related administration groups. I've participated in a few
net.political actions to ensure the freedom of speech that I'd like
to enjoy. For my efforts, I've been publically branded a loon, insane,
idealistic, moronic, obnoxious, wacko, a kook, and other expletives
which I'd rather not go into.

But this is not a free speech issue.

Free speech means being able to speak your mind. If you get hauled off
for doing that, like the Wobblies in their Free Speech Campaign in
the early 1900s, then there is no free speech.

But, if you can say something there, and not say it over there, then
it's not a free speech issue, since nobody has prevented you from
speaking.

That means that if you spray paint a slogon on someone's wall, you'll
be arrested for spray painting someone's wall, not because of what
you wrote.

It also means that a newspaper isn't restricting your free speech
if they won't print your letter to the editor, or in some other
way print your viewpoint. They aren't preventing you from publishing
your broadside yourself, and distributinting it, they aren't preventing
you from getting onto a soapbox on a busy street and speaking your mind.
All they are saying is that they won't print your letter, and it could
indeed be fore a variety of reasons, such as lack of space, a realization
that their readership might not be interested, or even that they don't
agree with what you are saying. They have no obligation, and not printing
the letter is not curtailing your freedom of speech.

People confuse the right to say something with the distribution of what
they want to say. If you aren't willing to pay to distribute your words,
then why would a newspaper feel they have to pony up the money to
distribute your words?

There are thousands and thousands of newsgroups, devoted to thousands
of topics, and that ensures your right to speek is not violated. There
are even dead newsgroups that amount to that soapbox off in the corner of
the park. If you want more listeners, then you have to do the work
to attract them.

But instead, people think it's their right to post wherever they want.
So it doesn't matter what the topic of the newsgroup is, it only matters
that they feel they have the right to jam their free speech down the
throats of others. They leech of the on-topic posts, which bring an
audience, and yet then think it's their right to say whatever they
want. The ironic part is that they need the on-topic audience for
their "free speech" to work, yet they forgot that every time they
post off-topic, they drive more and more people away. Their "free
speech" has done damage, not because of what they are saying, but
because of what they say it.

You don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, unless
there really is a fire. Not allowing you to do so does not restrict
your "freedom of speech".

It's the same with newsgroups. Trying to keep off-topic junk or
nonsense posts that just ruin the newsgroup is not a violation of
"free speech", it's about keeping an area clean.

All the off-topic junk has done here is to drive people away, that
there is a moderated newsgroup is not taking away anyone's "free speech",
since the spewers continue to think they have the "right" to spew here.

"Freedom" also entails responsibility.

Michael VE2BVW