---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:03:20 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: Internet knuckle-dragging from the New York Times Wired's Todd Lappin started the flamefest last Friday. A bit uncharacteristic, perhaps, since Todd is generally mild-mannered both online and offline -- but then again, he had a good point and a juicy target. It was the New York Times, which had front-paged a scaremongering above-the-fold article by Christopher Wren: http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/062097drug.html Todd posted on fight-censorship: The article, headlined "Seductive Drug Subculture Flourishes on the Internet," notes that the Net has become "a virtual do-it-yourself guide to drug use, at a time when adolescents' experimenting is on the rise." Our intrepid reporter then goes on to assert that "partly owing to free-speech protection, the Internet lacks a quality control mechanism to separate fact from hyperbole or from outright falsehood." Indeed, it is also because of those nettlesome free-speech protections that the New York Times is able to publish such drivel -- replete with it's schoolmarm fearmongering, silly correlations, and ankle-deep analysis. Then the Boston Globe's technology reporter, Hiawatha Bray, leaped in... -Declan *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:44:55 -0400 From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab@tiac.net> Awright. The lurking is over. What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck. I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it. Hiawatha Bray 617-929-3115 voice Technology Reporter 617-929-3183 fax Boston Globe wathab@tiac.net P.O. Box 2378 Boston, MA, 02107 http://members.tripod.com/~krothering/index.html ********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:18:34 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@onr.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes At 03:44 PM 6/20/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
Awright. The lurking is over.
What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck.
I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it.
You missed the point. We all know that there are sex fiends, dope smokers, and would-be Unabombers in this world, on the net and elsewhere. What we're saying is that they have free speech rights, just like you. This isn't about blowing people up. This isn't about molesting children. This isn't about doing drugs. You don't *do* any of those things online. But you may talk about them. This is about SPEECH. *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:28:27 -0800 To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab@tiac.net>, <Fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu> From: "--Todd Lappin-->" <telstar@wired.com> At 11:44 AM -0800 6/20/97, Hiawatha
What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck.
I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it.
This is complete and utter bullshit. I didn't say Wren's article was inaccurate... I said it is a load of sensationalist crap, laden with half-baked innuendo and unsubstantiated correlations. Don't pull the "so-called 'free speech advocate'" horsepucky with me either. I'm not calling for censorship of the Times... I'm simply saying that their story was garbage. Of course, they have a right to print garbage... but I also think they have an obligation to recount the facts accurately, and in proper context. This article failed to to that. Instead, it implies that Websites use cartoons to tempt the young (as if cartoons are only for the young), and that the availability of drug info online somehow ties in to the fact that "adolescents' [drug] experimenting is on the rise. That's both absurd and factually unsubstantiated. I have no problem discussing the darker side of the Net... I do so regularly and openly. But I'm fed up with the "Internet Did It" genre of newspaper reporting. It's shoddy, and worse, it's dangerous -- because it promotes public hysteria through techno-fearmongering. Deal with it. --Todd--> PS: Jon Lebkowsky's last point was excellent. ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 13:35:46 -0700 (PDT) From: baby-X <baby-x@millennium-cafe.com> On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it.
Either educate yourself about the fact that what these stories portray as some virulent epidemic of "bad" information is never anywhere near as severe as the hysteria said stories try to foster (for example, go spend this weekend reading all of Jon Katz over at the Netizen), or go back to lurking. ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:57:49 -0400 From: freematt@coil.com (Matthew Gaylor)
Awright. The lurking is over.
What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck.
I'm tired of listening to so-called "free speech advocates" going ballistic when they don't like what someone has to say. Every time a journalist writes a story about the seamier side of the Net, somebody complains that this will give outsiders the wrong idea. Nonsense. I think what really worries you is that such stories give people the RIGHT idea--that there are sex fiends, dope smokers and would-be Unabombers on-line. Well, there are. And as long as there are, journalists will write about the fact. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it.
Rather than write sensationalist stories on rather rare crimes in tabloid fashion- [Not that you are guility of this.] I'd personally rather see journalists mention that in comparison to kids swimming, riding a bike, or even playing a game of summer baseball- The chances of harm to children surfing the net is infinitesimal. Regards, Matt- ******** From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab@tiac.net> To: "Fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu" <Fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:07:08 -0400 Hmmm...how can I put this? The quality of the responses to my previous message was, well...lame. I don't do flame, so I'm trying to be courteous about this. But folks--you need to grow up. ******** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:05:31 -0700 To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu From: Lizard <lizard@dnai.com> At 03:44 PM 6/20/97 -0400, you wrote:
Awright. The lurking is over.
What IS your problem? Can you point to any inaccuracies in Mr. Wren's story? If not, tough luck.
If every week, all you saw in the papers were stories of journalists who beat their wives, jounalists who were arrested on drunk driving charges, journalists who falsified facts, and journalists who were late on their child-support payments, would you simply be content to know that all the stories were accurate? Or would you beging to think that maybe, just maybe, there was a slant? What you choose to report on is as important as the accuracy of the report. What makes this story newsworthy? Why the snide reminder that it's that darn ol' Free Speech thing that keeps these sites from being shut down? Why the emphasis on how 'anyone' can post stuff to the net, since there's no business interest to keep them controlled? It's 100% pure propaganda, designed to stir up calls for a law to prevent distributing 'drug information' to minors, what with the pending (we hope -- well, *I* hope -- you probably don't) collapse of the CDA. You know it is, too. why are you defending it? *********** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) From: baby-X <baby-x@millennium-cafe.com> To: "Fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu" <Fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes On Fri, 20 Jun 1997, Hiawatha Bray wrote: The following is an example of why we don't hold your opinions to be of very much worth:
At no point does Mr. Wren say that Internet use among the young causes increased drug abuse. He merely notes that a communications medium very popular with young people is laden with messages that encourage drug use,
Laden? Here is the definition of laden from the Hypertext Webster Gateway: Definition for Laden from database web1913 (web1913) Laden \Lad"en\, p. & a. Loaded; freighted; burdened; as, a laden vessel; a laden heart. Loaded? Freighted? Burdened? It's the use of this sort of hysteria-tinted language that causes so many problems in establishment media ocverage of cyberspace. We know, from use of words like this one, what YOUR bias is in these cases. We're just trying to keep that bias from infecting too much media coverage. baby-X <baby-x@millennium-cafe.com> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BitBurn Access - CyberPOLIS - Millennium Cafe - Sluggish Canine ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.millennium-cafe.com/~baby-x/ ************* Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:19:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Rebecca Daugherty <rebeccad@CapAccess.org> To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab@tiac.net> I think it's at least philosophically inaccurate to blame the net for the action. It's like killing the messenger, cursing the pen. And it's too sure 'n easy a spin -- bad ole technology has done this too us. um.um.um. There are changes to note -- there are new kinds of technologically proficient pedophiles and they merit some ink so they can be combatted. But the net is the same old net and a benign one with no seamy side at all in my thinking. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Daugherty <rebeccad@capaccess.org> Director, FOI Service Center, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Visit our web site for media law information: http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/ ************** Subject: Re: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 18:07:19 -0400 From: Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@isr.umd.edu> In fairness, I don't see many stories in the media about guns except in consideration of their use for murder or suicide. Infact, the Net gets off much easier than guns! -Thomas ************** Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 15:54:47 -0700 To: Hiawatha Bray <wathab@tiac.net> From: Lizard <lizard@dnai.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes Cc: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu At 06:22 PM 6/20/97 -0400, Hiawatha Bray wrote:
I gotta admit, I find your reply irresistible! Much too much fun to argue with. Okay. You win. You get to be Lizard.
But you're still talking nonsense about the Times story. Just because it makes you nervous to read nastiness about the Net, doesn't make it wrong for journalists to write the truth. Besides, have you ever kept count of how many pro-Net stories there are? If anything, we reporters have been guilty of shamelessly hyping the Internet. I could probably show you 10 positive stories about the Internet for every negative one. Trust me--I end up reading nearly all of them...it's the cross I must bear!
Very few 'pro internet' stories deal with the REAL benefits of the Internet -- the breakup of the media monopoly, the 'everyone is a reader, everyone is a writer' concept, the building of communities of interest rather than coincidence. We all know about children meeting Evil Predators on the net -- why not stories about children meeting mentors, teachers, or counselors? Rather than "My wife left me for her cyberlover!", why not "I met my wife thanks to our shared interest in barbed-wire collecting"? Let's look at that drug story. Why not write it like this? ==================================================== "After decades of getting only one side of the story from teachers, government, and a lapdog media, teenagers are now able to easily access both pro- and anti- drug information on the Internet, and chat with each other about their drug experiences in secure anonymity, permitting them to make up their own minds on this complex issue. Because Internet access is so inexpensive, people do not need the support of advertisers or subscribers to post any information they wish -- so views outside the mainstream, which would never be aired in traditional forums, can reach anyone with a modem, anywhere in the world. Further, the interactive nature of the net makes it easy for people on all sides of a debate to fire off points and counterpoints, so that the audience (who can become participants at will) can make up their own minds, ask questions, and raise issues that neither side might choose to raise on their own. "It's wonderful for kids", says Mr. Fictional, teacher at Utopia Public School. "We don't want them to 'Say No to Drugs' out of fear or ignorance, but out of a reasoned understanding of the harm drugs can do to them -- and that means they need to get the facts, not a lot of scare tactics. The government would never let us teach the 'straight dope', if you will, but we can turn kids on to the net and let them learn for themselves." ==================================================== There. There's all the "facts" -- but a very different spin, no? ************ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 16:53:29 -0500 From: Jon Lebkowsky <jonl@onr.com> Subject: RE: Internet Knuckle-dragging from the NYTimes
Very nice. But so what? Mr. Wren simply reported what's going on. He never called for censorship of the Internet. Were you reading the same article I was, or what?
Yeah, the article that said "partly owing to free-speech protection, the Internet lacks a quality control mechanism to separate fact from hyperbole or from outright falsehood." While not exactly a call for censorship, this is certainly dismissive of free speech. ************ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/