Subject: RE: Anyone not in favor of a PR-Action against Jefsey Morfin

From: "Nelson, David" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:59:25 -0400

For those who suggest that PR action is never appropriate to take
against any person, let me suggest that rights of free expression are
not unlimited.  Any human right has practical limits when it comes into
direct conflict with the rights of another.

For example, consider two college roommates.  One wishes to exercise his
freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning
(without the benefit of headphones, of course!).  The other wishes to
exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be well rested for
the big exam the following morning.  Clearly, each roommate, taken
individually, is exercising a reasonable freedom, but in this case they
have come into conflict.

While I have no opinion on the current case, it seems to me that the
basis for any such PR decision has to be based on the balance of rights.
Does the right of the allegedly abusive poster to express himself come
into conflict with the rights of the other mailing list participants to
conduct an orderly discourse?  If such a conflict exists, then is the
imposition on the many sufficiently large to justify limiting the rights
of the one?

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 06:42:57 +0200

> individually, is exercising a reasonable freedom, but in this case they

The student listening to music need only put on headphones, then they
will both be happy.  It's a poor analogy.

> imposition on the many sufficiently large to justify limiting the rights

Unless the allegedly abusive poster is engaging in a technical denial
of service or other action unrelated to the actual substance of what
he is posting, there is never any reason to exclude him.  Censorship
is disguised in many forms; many people like to practice it, but very
few are willing to call it what it is.

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:25:55 -0400

> few are willing to call it what it is.

I don't think the word censorship applies here - it's not clear
to me that there's any absolute right to participate in IETF
discussions.  But anyway, the IETF makes decisions by rough
consensus, and it's the nature of consensus process to be kind
of fragile.  If the participants don't share a similar commitment
to both the outcome and the process itself, it's pretty easy for
things to break down and progress to stop.  In other words,
someone being disruptive tends to be something worse than merely
annoying.  If the IETF made decisions by voting the considerations
would be somewhat different.

Melinda

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:50:18 -0700

> > For example, consider two college roommates.  One wishes to 
> exercise 
> > his freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the 
> > morning (without the benefit of headphones, of course!).  The other 
> > wishes to exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as 
> to be well 
> > rested for the big exam the following morning.  Clearly, each 
> > roommate, taken individually, is exercising a reasonable 
> freedom, but 
> > in this case they have come into conflict.
> 
> The student listening to music need only put on headphones, 
> then they will both be happy.  It's a poor analogy.
> 

Need implies accepting someone elses constraints. That's a poor
simplification, because 100 people could tell someone that they "need" to
stop posting friviously and harming list progress, and they can still chose
to ignore it if there are no teeth to the rules.

-T

---

From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:01:30 +0200

Thomas Gal writes:

> simplification, because 100 people could tell someone that they
> "need" to stop posting friviously and harming list progress, and
> they can still chose to ignore it if there are no teeth to the
> rules.

A discussion forum is a place that, by its very nature, must allow
_open_ communication.  It is thus not comparable to individuals
listening to personal stereos in the same room, as intercommunication
between those individuals is not of the essence of their listening
experience.  In this latter case, they can easily put on headphones
without impacting their individual experiences; but in the former
case, any attempt to silence one person has an effect not only on him
but on everyone else, by squelching the very activity for which the
discussion forum exists.