<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=us-ascii" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18852"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Hi Robert, I want to answer this in greater detail later as
family obligations allow.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I too am a freedom of speech advocate, when it comes to
governments. We promise to not arrest you. That is what the US
government is granting us with that amendment, a promise to not arrest us for
what we say or write. But on the other hand circumspection is always wise,
and in some cases actual decorum. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>Freedom of speech
is about what governments can do to its citizens. I don't see how it
applies in this case. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>The ExI moderators are not governors, but rather more
like advisors, with passwords.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Back when I was moderating, I used to get three to five times
more offlist complaints about under-moderating than about over-moderating.
I thought it a good ratio and tried to maintain that ratio. Last spring
when I was on the road a lot, I had to give it up because I was at the
point where I wasn't really moderating at all, but rather dealing with plenty of
offlist complaints about under-moderating. {8^D</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>Later! </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>spike</FONT></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=046582506-05122009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Robert Bradbury
[mailto:robert.bradbury@gmail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 04, 2009
9:56 PM<BR><B>To:</B> Max More; spike<BR><B>Cc:</B> ExICh<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Moderation on the ExiCh list<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Max has asked me to explain my recent comment comment comparing the
ExiCh moderation policies to gestapo policies.
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>First of all, let me suggest that was a little bit far even for me.
But it is my nature to be very passionate (with respect to my
convictions) -- and I will tend to stretch analogies in order to make a point.
First of all my comment was related to the moderation of a very heated
debate which I think took place circa 2006-2007 time-frame and it was the
primary reason that I discontinued any significant contribution to the ExICh
list. I believe the moderators at that time were Eugen and Spike (and
Max was to my knowledge was not involved). And I do agree that the
moderation then, as now, is very mild (bordering on not even present).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But as a person of conviction, I happen to believe in the first article
of the Bill of Rights, e.g. "Congress shall make no law respecting an an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof [1]; OR
ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH [2], .." should be taken very seriously.
And as I happen to have grown up in Massachusetts and happen to have
walked along the trail of the Minitueman and happen to have ancestors who came
into MA circa 1634 -- and presumably some of my ancestors fought in the
Revolutionary War.-- I happen to take the matters for which they fought, and
perhaps died for, VERY SERIOUSLY.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Now obviously an email list can adopt whatever policies it likes -- so in
that respect it does not have the limits or guidelines placed on it that the
U.S. Congress has (an email list, perhaps in contrast to a blog, is
effectively a dictatorship).. At the other end of the spectrum one could
go into posts to social networking, blogs or news commentary pages that allow
anonymous posts that possibly allow defamatory and/or personally damaging
posts (which given the fact that unsubstantiated claims propagate is
presumably not a good thing). And the ExICh list is notable in that it
allows "outside of the box" or "off the cuff" thinking. (For example, I
recently gave up participating in the GRG list due to the fact that one
or more individuals objected to the colorful language that I may have used in
regard to one or more posts -- I believe with respect to something which was
NOT worthy of consideration -- something those of you who know me know I have
a very low tolerance of). And thus I became disinvolved with
contributing to the GRG list. For similar reasons (with regard to
unclear moderation policies) I became disinvolved with the ExICh list several
years ago.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The point of a moderated list would presumably be to minimize the
exposure of the list to defamation lawsuits, and in some cases "accuracy"
statements (say the Raelians were to start auto-cross-posting their fluff.
[2]). But I am unaware of such a policy being explicitly cast in bronze.
In other cases I should view any moderation policy needing to be clearly
stated (so one clearly understands what restrictions one has that are less
than the U.S. Congress.) And there should be a "board of appeals" -- in
that if ones moderated post is rejected one can subject it to independent
scrutiny (and where extremely necessary censorship). (This is common
behavior in the film industry which IMO is not a good model for distribution
restrictions but may be a good model for self-imposed censorship).</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>But I do remain resolute in that undefined moderation policies border on
gestapo policies (though the intent in the analogy is problematic) is not to
detract from ExICh policies but to perhaps encourage their gradual solutions.
For the first thing one wants to kill in a free society is Freedom of Speech
-- precisely because that represents a threat (China, and to a lesser extent
Iran, being the current primary examples). And the moderators [at least
to my knowledge] have not published which specific censorship rules they use.
And so what is viewed as a "threat" or even "defamatory" is unclear. There is
of course "Common Informed Censorship" but unlike other authorities we do not
know what this is (it may shift from individual to individual as the
moderation shifts ( So I may (or may not) view the ExICh llist as little
different from a CIA chat list.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I would strongly suspect that a topic entitled "Strategies to assassinate
the President" would be unacceptable to the moderators. And yet why?
Is it not the exercise of Free Speech? The ExICh list really needs
to break down in detail acceptable vs. unacceptable list policies (that
presumably the moderators are attempting to mediate). (Because I know
that there are list members who could come up with creative solutions to this
question -- which means I should ask them in personal communications and not
on the list). But merely stating this probably puts ExICh on the "watch
list" even if it isn't already there.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Max & Spike, I apologize for opening the debate but I believe you
both know me well enough that I will not draw back from engaging discussion.
And it prompts the topic of things which seriously need to be thought
about.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Robert</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>1. Which considering the extent to which religions go about in
brain-washing individuals who are incapable of reasoned or informed thought
(i.e. children) is unconscioncable.</DIV>
<DIV>2. Note that I do not consider to be the Raelians perspective of the
colonization of Earth impossible. I consider it to be one of a number of
probable realities which must be thought about.</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>