"I won't give him the keys to this forum... I'm left with giving him that choice, bitch or leave. I keep the keys." --Current forum sysop

On the old TB 2000, the forum sysops were always dreaming up sinister plots by the Y2K "pollies." The common theme--the "pollies" are out to destroy "our" forum. The height of paranoia came when Phil Greenspun fell under suspicion (when the forum went offline). This was after Greenspun had provided a free home for the forum for well over a year.

The old forum sysops saw themselves as owners of a private club... rather than stewards of a public forum. With EZB, they now have a private club. The old TB 2000, however, was clearly a public place. Yourdon's original invitation invited anyone interested in Y2K to join the discussion. I enjoyed the earlier days of the TB 2000. After late spring 1999 (roughly when Yourdon turned over control to others) the quality of the forum declined. One of the primary reasons, I think, was the sense of "ownership" the sysops had about the forum.

This is why I included the quote by the current sysop at the beginning of this essay. With all due respect, when I read the quote, I kept imagining a very small Daffy Duck saying, "Mine, mine, mine. It's all mine." ("Hassan, chop!" for any of you WB fans.)

Personally, I don't think Flint has ANY desire to become a sysop. (Nor do I for that matter.) I simply think he wants to enjoy a forum where he has the maximum freedom possible... including the freedom to use (or not use) a link to Diane Squire's web site. He also makes a version of Cardinal Richleau's observation (and I paraphrase) "It is difficult to find a man who has cheated on his wife but once."

I am willing to wait and see how things unfold, though I share Richleau's skepticism. A key factor will be the attitude of the sysop... is this a public forum maintained for the commonweal? Or does the sysop "own" the forum? In my opinion, an attitude of stewardship is far less likely to cause problems than an attitude of ownership.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000

Answers

Let's give Lady Looney the keys then everyone can powder their ass.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), May 03, 2000.

OTFR started this forum.

OTFR maintains this forum.

There is no 'registration' required for this forum. So, this is an open, public forum where anyone can post anything they want.

OTFR can do what OTFR wants.

As was said at the Old Timebomb: If you don't like it, leave.

OTFR is not required to explain anything to anyone. Ever.

Get it?

-- now move along. (get@grip.folks!), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

This is getting sillier and sillier, IMO. Internet fora are like Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises. Someone way under the cover OWNS them, but there's a different manager in each, and each manager makes his own rules. Are ANY of them maintained for the commonweal? If you think so, try going into one of them and saying, "Hey, Nigger! You want some watermelon with that chicken?" Heh...my daughter works for Boston Market and she had a co-worker who suffered from a mental disorder. The co-worker "checked out" a woman entering the store and yelled out, "Hey, you're pregnant, eh? Step right up and buy some chicken for two." Well, the woman WASN'T pregnant, and certainly didn't appreciate being treated this way in public, so she called for the manager, who fired the girl.

Sometimes restraint is called for, Ken. If people can't restrain themselves, someone else is typically called in to do the job. THIS is included in the jobs of the manager. On internet fora, the job title is forum administrator.

Was there a rule that stated that employees of Boston Market couldn't make statements to people of weight? I doubt it. Who would have thought they would?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

I agree with Anita. She makes good sense.

-- Maya (Maya@eck.is), May 03, 2000.

Anita there is no need to insult Kentucky Fried Chicken!

Ken and Flint enjoy acting like three year olds-notice the reference to Daffy Duck.

-- finger (lickin@go.od), May 03, 2000.

Anita,

You missed. This Internet forum is hosted by a public-supported university. It is not a private business. I doubt you can burn a flag in the local KFC, but you can burn a flag on a public campus. Different places, different rules.

A fast-food job is not a right. The same ex-employee you mention can stand on the public sidewalk outside and protest the business or overweight people or the price of chicken. He/she has a right to express these views in a public fora (like a street). Freedom of speech does not mean you say anything you want anywhere you want. It does mean that in public fora your right of expression is protected.

Prove this is not a public fora, and we can have a much better argument.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.

Anita

Was there a rule that stated that employees of Boston Market couldn't make statements to people of weight? I doubt it. Who would have thought they would?

Naa...I won't go there....

-- STM (debates@r_us.com), May 03, 2000.

Ooops! italics off!

-- STM (debates@r_us.com), May 03, 2000.

Ever wonder why the url has a .com instead of a .edu? Could it possibly be that the server that runs the lusenet discussions are actually Mr. Greenspun's and not MIT's? There are additional fees for setting up a .com and I cannot really see why a university (public or private) would spend the extra money to register a .com when they have already spent the money to register the .edu. Just a serious question, and one which we will probably never know the answer to.

-- (JustAsking@Question.Here), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

We're back to MIT owning the forum paid by our tax dollars, eh?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

Ever wonder why the url has a .com instead of a .edu? Could it possibly be that the server that runs the lusenet discussions are actually Mr. Greenspun's and not MIT's? There are additional fees for setting up a .com and I cannot really see why a university (public or private) would spend the extra money to register a .com when they have already spent the money to register the .edu. Just a serious question, and one which we will probably never know the answer to.

Actually, we do know the answer and you are absolutely correct. Phil sent an email once to someone from the old TimeBomb around the rollover when he had to pull the plug on it due to the automated robot programs downloading the database and crashing his server. I believe it was in this email that he mentioned that MIT merely provided the space for his equipment and that was all. Phil owns the rest of it.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 03, 2000.

Howdy Folks:

Don't be so hard on Ken and Flint. When the main course is ego, it must be served with a good whine.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Ken, you said:

"It does mean that in public fora your right of expression is protected."

Please cite the supreme court cases in which it is unequivacobly stated that there are absolutely no constraints to free speech anywhere at anytime for any reason. The right is "protected" insofar as the courts determine the boundries. There ARE boundries. I am sure you know this. Just walk over to your neighbor's house and threaten to harm his children, and see if you do not get arrested.

Thanks.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 03, 2000.

Who owns anything? The answer is: whoever has the highest price legal team arguing over the meaning of inky symbols on parchment.

-- (@ .), May 03, 2000.

They watch as we watch as we watch as they watch. Link

-- liu (lookitup@dictionary.com), May 03, 2000.

Z,

Great Response...LMAO.

---still waiting to 'see' if Flint puts down the keyboard to take care of his 'lonely wife'....*snicker*

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Anita... I take it you do not plan to prove this is not a public forum. Perhaps Mr. Greenspun is a wealthy philanthropist who donates server space to needy individuals. If so, I will retract my objections.

Future... don't be silly. We both know free speech is not unlimited speech, crying fire in a crowded theatre and all that. We also know the burden rests upon those who wish to limit freedom. They must prove such limitations are justifiable to the court. Please cite the case law precdents where you feel the actions of the forum sysop might be defensible.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.

*snicker*

*snort*

*tinkle*

*fart*

oops, did I do that?

-- fat consumer (shht@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

Anita... I take it you do not plan to prove this is not a public forum. Perhaps Mr. Greenspun is a wealthy philanthropist who donates server space to needy individuals. If so, I will retract my objections.

It is a pleasure to read your retraction to Anita. Now, what is a legal precdent?

Best wishes,,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Fat Consumer:

Aw, come on surely you CAN do better than that?

You have used that a 'few times' too many, but since we are uncensored, it is ok, I dont mind, just try and be a little more creative next time, k?

--------still waiting.......

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

I just wrote something similar to what follows, on the thread In Defense of OTFR. I will repeat it here, because it should be illuminating:

OK. If I grasp your argument, it runs this way: This is a public forum. It invites public participation. It is not a private club. It exerts no bar to membership but throws itself open to the public. The right to free speech is protected in public forums. Further, it is a government-sponsored public forum. This is proved by the fact that MIT in some sense runs the servers and MIT is government funded. If the right to free speech is protected in public forums, it should be doubly protected in a government-sponsored one. It is up to one of us to prove this is not a public forum, otherwise you can't escape the conclusion that OTFR's actions could not be justified in court. You even seem to think case law is on your side, since you challenge us to cite case law against you.

So, let's imagine you take OTFR to court. If you want this to be a criminal action, you'd have to assert that OTFR deprived you of your civil rights. If you want this to be a civil suit, you need to prove damages. Your choice. You fall flat either way.

Your lawyer stands up and makes all these arguments you have made. OTFR's lawyer stands up and says, Ken's right to free speech has not been impaired. NO damage has been done. Ken was not deprived of any right to speak freely. At most, he experienced a speed bump in his path.

How do we prove this? Easy. You can start your own forum on a Greenspun server today, using the same level of access to the same precise services and publish whatever you want to say to your heart's content.

The judge frowns heavily at your lawyer and asks, "Is this true?"

"Yes, your honor, but..."

"But nothing. Case dismissed."

In addition, if you go to the other thread, you will see my argument that the pertinent right here is the right to freedom of the press, where the government may not interfere with editorial decisions to limit or include content. The fact that MIT is a government sponsored and funded institution is a red herring, since they are acting as publishers here, which effectively prevents the argument that the government may step in and mandate (your) content being published.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 03, 2000.

Ken:

"Anita... I take it you do not plan to prove this is not a public forum. Perhaps Mr. Greenspun is a wealthy philanthropist who donates server space to needy individuals. If so, I will retract my objections."

I do NOT plan to prove this is not a public forum. To be honest, Ken, I don't know where I'd look for rules on what's allowed and what's not allowed [if anything] on a public forum. You cited an example of burning a flag on a campus as an example of free speech in a public place. I went to public schools through high-school, and I guarantee we had rules. Rules that didn't exist when *I* went to public school somehow showed up when my kids went to school, and not all of them were listed. For instance, my kids couldn't wear different colored shoe-strings in their shoes. The kids were trying to emulate Punky Brewster in so doing, but the school thought it would encourage "gang colors." The kids wanted to start a club that met after school. They weren't allowed to do that either anywhere near school grounds.

It's my understanding that discrimination is not allowed when there's a question regarding tax dollars spent. When TB2000 was on LUSENET, it was argued that a tax-supported facility should not be discriminating against one group [meaning deleting/banning optimists where pessimists were given free rein.] AFAIK, there's been no deliberate attempt here to single out one philosophy.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

STM:

I didn't want you to think I didn't notice your comment. I caught it, and might add that I doubt there was a rule stating "Don't kill the patrons." either.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 03, 2000.

Brian and Anita make sense to me.

There's also the fact that a forum on Lusenet can be made with password protection. That in itself suggests selectiveness. There's several such forums right now on greenspun. They block the rest of us out, are they abridging our right to free speech? Or practicing their right of freedom of association?

-- (y@x.x), May 03, 2000.

Just a legal aside about all this BS about a "right to free speech." There isn't one in this context. The Constitution only protects speech from government intervention or censorship. If you don't believe this, try telling your boss what your really think of him/her and then arguing "free speech" when you're fired.

I like it here; I do not like it over at EZboard. But, I do not pretend that I have any "rights" with regard to this forum. I hope my opinions will be respected; that is why I come here. But, to some extent, the first amendment free speech guarantees are about creating the proverbial "marketplace of ideas." In other words, I like the way this forum is run. So, I stay. If you don't like it, vocalize your discontent as you are doing now. Good on 'ya!

But don't whine about how your "rights" are being impared.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), May 03, 2000.

Anita,

Children do not have the same rights as adults... but even in public schools some rules about hair, dress, etc., have been found unconstitutional. To take away a right, you have to provide a legitimate rationale.

Porter,

Read some case law where a person was fired for something they said outside of work (like campaigning for a democratic while their boss was republican). Can you say "wrongful discharge." Free speech is not unlimited, but the right does protect us from both public and private interference.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), May 03, 2000.

Well, Ken.....you've got me. The Universities I attended were all private. My personal experiences only got me THIS far.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 04, 2000.