[Seattle-editorial] Fwd: Re: [IMC-Editorial] Anti-Semitic Propaganda

[anarch3m]

--

--------- Forwarded Message ---------

DATE: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 10:07:57
From: Bob Hassett <bob at purple.ils.unc.edu>
To: anarch3m <anarch3m at lycos.com>

Walt:

Thanks first for your considered response. I appreciate your taking the time to reply.

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 04:03:36PM -0700, anarch3m wrote: 

> I seem to not be finding the part of the N.C. editorial poicy that says "we don't have
> time for it."  Was this phrase a result of your frustrations with the site, or did
> someone reply thusly to you?

No, nobody said as much to me. It was a paraphrase of something I believed I had read in 
one of the policy statements. But, as I search back through now I can't find what it was 
that led me to that conclusion. So, for the purpose of the discussion, I'd be willing to 
retract that statement and apologize for any mischaracterization.

However, in my second look at the NC-IMC policies I came across the statement that the
site is not intended to promote "religious diatribes" or to be a forum "for sociopaths
to abuse the community." "To serve this end," the policy continues, "the network is
empowered through consensus vote to delete posts that are sexist, racist, homophobic,
pornographic, fascist..." I fail to see that deleting a post that is very obviously
anti-Semitic and also riddled with falsehood would not be an extension of that very
sensible policy. If it's without the bounds of acceptability to post a call to arms
against, for example, homosexuals as being children of Satan, why is it OK to do so
against Jews?

> As believers of the theory that "to disinfect, you must let it see light of day," it
> would be unprincipled of us to cave for each letter of this type recieved. 

Absolutely. Your readers would have every reason to be extremely disappointed if you did
so. By the same token, however, you'd be doing a disservice of another sort if you never
responded appropriately to any of these letters. Surely sometimes you swallow your pride
and "cave" to a reader by removing something from the site.

> I urge you to consider it from our position.  Its within the bounds of legal within
> the U.S.A.  We see as much of the oposite view, as well as anti both Semetic 
> traditions.

I assure you that I have considered it from your position. As a matter of policy, I
applaud you. I think you provide a vital service to an open society. However, I think
that, in this instance, you're wrong. I think you're misapplying your stated principles.
"If it's legal, it's OK" is hardly a strong argument in favor of doing something. The
KKK, for example, is within it's legal rights in most places in burning crosses to
intimidate its chosen enemies. I reluctantly support their First Ammendment rights to do
so. Still, I think they exercise very bad judgement in carrying these manifestations of
speech to the public and I would encourage them not to do it. I certainly give them no
weight as an information source. I don't mean to imply that you have put yourself in
league with the Klan, but I do think that you run the risk of putting your reputation in
jeopardy.

> I envite you to look again thru the replies.  Yes even there you can find more
> narrow minds.  Would you prefer to ignore them until they go away?  Or until they find
> innocents to infect?

I have read through the replies again and it's true that they run the gamut. When I
first read them a week ago there was only the one ambiguous Hitler reference. No, I'm no
stranger to openness and debate. But doesn't it seem like the thugs have enough outlets
for their messages? I certainly come across their screeds all too frequently.

I guess my question is this: If nothing on the site is to be given any weight at all,
then why should I trust any of it?  Where should I turn for accuracy? 80 people turned
out to protest police brutality in Greensboro? Says who? Why should I believe it? It 
seems to me your ends would be better served not by adhering slavishly to an abstract
idea, but by striking a balance with some minimal standards of decency, something your 
policy claims you advocate. By refusing to speak out against hatred, we only suckle it. 
Where is the harm in saying, "I fully support your right to say that, but we're not 
going to listen to it here"?

Anyway, thanks again for hearing me out (if you've gotten this far). Keep fighting the 
good fight.

---Bob.
-- 
/**********************************************************
* Bob Hassett                                             *
* Raleigh, NC                                             *
* GPG Public Key @ http://purple.ils.unc.edu/bob.asc      *
**********************************************************/

--------- End Forwarded Message ---------



_____________________________________________________
Supercharge your e-mail with a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads
and NoTaglines --> LYCOS MAIL PLUS.
http://www.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus