Flame Wars

An interesting feature of the emerging flame-war debate is the paranoia on
the part of some individuals who apparently believe that a mysterious and
sinister group of people (governmental, etc.) are going to forcibly censor
internet newsgroup discussions. I think it is safe to say that EACH of us on
this list would be fundamentally opposed to any single individual or group
of individuals having the power to forcibly censor any newsgroup they desire
- -- say, a newsgroup that you yourself created. (Note: this is very different
from the essential characteristics of a moderated discussion list, in which
the list was set-up with the expressed intent of having a moderated
discussion of any particular topic -- most high-quality academic newsgroups,
and virtually every periodical, newspaper and magazine are, for example,
moderated...).

Were the government to take steps toward empowering itself with the right to
censor any newsgroup it so desires (recent congressional legislation re. an
internet-applied 'decency act' would be a good example), we ought to fight
it tooth and nail. 

But someone on a newsgroup pleading for less public bickering, flaming, etc.
on the part of other newsgroup members hardly qualifies as 'censorship' or
even 'attempted censorship'. It is simply the verbalizing of tacit community
standards. 

For example, theoretically, I could enter a diner, sit at the counter, and
begin hurling insults at total strangers (or better yet, just start swearing
random curse words at no one in particular). I of course have a
"constitutional right" to do so. But can the other individuals in the diner
simply "choose" not to hear my cursing?  

No, they can't. The patrons of the diner can't help but be exposed to the
vitriol -- you can't turn off your eardrums. The diner is a public place --
a public 'forum', so to speak -- just as this Who-list is. And when
individuals are in a public place, they are expected to exercise
self-control and courtesy. 

It's analogous to young college kids making public spectacles of themselves
by burning a flag. I personally don't give a shit whether someone burns a
flag or not. And I personally would be the first in line to defend that
person's right were the government to forcibly censure the act. But why do
it in the first place, except to antagonize others for no apparent reason? 

I could, for example, decide to walk out to my front lawn with a picture of
Christ, and begin burning it in front of my Christian neighbors. But what is
the point of doing this in the first place?! I'm not a Christian, so that
means it is useful or constructive for me to deliberately try to antagonize
my neighbors' moral beliefs? 

Finding something (under First Amendment protection) to say or do simply to
piss somebody off doesn't make you a martyr, it makes you an asshole. 

David Thirteen
http://www.the-spa.com/thirteen