On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Brigham Young University's censorhappy speech codes. Or me inviting someone into my home and kicking them out if I feel like it.
-Declan
The house rules part I can agree with. The BYU "code" was a challenging wall to climb. Too many people I knew at the Daily Universe and KBYU had to become masters of the double entante to make a point sometimes. Newsspeak, as Orwell called it. The code of honor at the campus was based upon good intentions, but it was the literal interpretaition of such writs, plus the extension thereof into areas of speech and press, without case by case consideration that incensed me no end. More than once I found myself on the business of that document because of "concerns" over the material in question. In certain circles, the FRAT still lives on. Ofcourse Steve Benson and Patrick Bagely have done well since their trial by fire with Dallan Oaks. The zoobies will recognize the former BYU president; the rest of the well read will recognize the politcal cartoonists. As for rules and regulations in general: Civilized society operates on them as the alogrythm to conduct. For those who choose to hold to a defintion of a higher morale and what they define as civil conduct, then the rules for acceptable conduct reflect that. When a civil standard has to be defined down, or penalties introduced to attempt to insure "compliance", then the battle for that level of societal behavior has been lost or nearly so. To wit: In order to promote a sense of order out of a group of people who have not been taught correct principles, one must wield a big stick and use it often, rather than try and engendure by persuation and example and let them use their free agency to decide that such behavior is in their own best interest. This is not brainwashing. As for the original point on Vulis: John Gimore did what he did. Vulis challenged him, and John called his bluff. Having read this list for quite a while now, I've seen alot of crap go back and forth from many people that was just as annoying as what Vulis was doing. They have not been bounced, and I suspect it may have something to do with not poking at the list owner, who it is my understanding, pays money out so the these discussions can even take place. Treading on the good will of a host is bad form... ...Paul
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Libertarianism is not incompatible with strict regulations, as long as the rules violate nobody's rights.
I would appreciate an example of "strict regulations" which do not violate anybody's rights.
- Igor.
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //