Date: 17 Feb 96 15:19:35 EST
From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Censorship and evasions


Jerry did not like my specific endorsement in a post signed
as a comoderator, that Kevin had the right to warn
that if Elsequin persisted in obscene attacks he would
go to Elsequin's postmaster.

That's tough for Jerry, but unless I see a lot of posts
suddenly condemning Kevin for his statement, I conclude
that people feel he does indeed have the right to do
that. Perhaps in fact one of our 350 subscribers has
done so already.

The censorship I am in favour of, and I repeatedly stress
to newcomers is that this l*st is not-censored, is that
of self-censorship or rather a responsibility to consider
how your post is going to be read at all and not just 
deleted.

As the welcome notes say "MARXISM is also something of an
electronic community, which is self-governing and self-policing."

IMO the balance of feeling about Elsequin's posts was extremely 
clear.

Others pointed out to Ostrakava their strong feelings
about warning the PCP about the courts. I took it upon 
myself also to point out to New Flag that it might  be in 
their interests not to post in such a way that they may
be vulnerable to this.

I think we benefit enormously in this unique forum by
Spoon's policy that noone can be censored. The paradox
is that it really does put a lot of responsibility 
on people, once their realise the implications, to 
contribute constructively.

A weakness in this system is that we are vulnerable to 
newcomers who leap in to the pool with six posts a day
with no consciousness that a group culture might 
already have evolved. If they arrive seeing 
10% of mail using abusive obscenities already, 
they take their cue accordingly.

This is one of the arguments for having moderators.
This list has the paradox that it has always been said
to be "unmoderated" IMO in the sense above but it has 
always been reported to 
have moderators in the welcome notes. 

I interpret that to mean that it does not have 
the censorship powers planned for the marxist newsgroup 
whose details Jerry forwarded to the l*st or the 
regulations. There are pros and cons
of different ways of doing things. We 
probably benefit by diversity.

Jerry thought it in his interest to ask 
sarcastically 
"Aren't we lucky to have Gary and Chris as "co-moderators"?

I would point out that Jerry himself was asked to join a wider
group of comoderators along with Louis in a constructive
effort to help the l*st move further forward. He declined
on grounds of being too busy. In view of his 
continual interest in the l*st (although IMO of a rather 
depressing nature - but that is up to him) and 
the frequency of his postings, I find that
reason lacking in credibility.

I would like Jerry to let us know anything 
valuable about what is going on in the political 
economy l*st that he moderates, and I would like
him to say positively, rather than negatively,
what he would like to do for this l*st and 
encourage others to do. 

Would he like
to volunteer to co-ordinate a seminar
for example on a practical aspect
of political economy which complements 
more theoretical discussions on his l*st?


Chris
London.




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------