On Fri, 18 Mar 1994 09:42:51 CST Brad Samek said:
>      I'm new to LSTOWN-L, but I have been moderating an entertainment
>   (Role Playing Game) list for a few years now.  When I took over the
>   list, it was explained to me by our local (then) Postmaster that
>   'foul' or 'abusive' or 'objectionable' words and phrases should not
>   be allowed.
>
>      What I would like to know is this an 'official' policy?  Are
>   there any kind of definitions or examples of what constitutes
>   'foul' ..[etc.] language?  Do any of you enforce this type of
>   policy and (if so) what guidelines do you follow?  Any constructive
>   input would be appreciated.
 
I'm neither a lawyer nor a systems administrator, but I am on the
University's computing committee and have once-upon-a-time read both the
CREN (the current administration of what was once BITNET/EARN/NETNORTH)
policy and Internet contract (I think ours is from JVNCNet).  If memory
serves (and these days, it sometimes is pretty inexact :-) both of those
have boilerplate that certainly define abusiveness as verboten and strongly
imply that words and phrases of an unacceptable nature exist (like Justice
Stewart, you have to "know them when you see them").
 
That said, there's a rather interesting feature of the Internet that I
picked up on long ago (in cyberspace time that's less than a decade :)
THERE IS NO FORMAL MECHANISM FOR ENFORCING THE RULES!  The Internet
contract places responsibility squarely on the domain administrator (I
believe that's the first three digits of an IP number).  We have an
identified person whose administratively responsible for the behavior of
all the systems tied to the University's domain all the way from my
individual Macintosh to the ES9000 mainframe shared by 12,000 users (that's
the approximate number of registered login IDs according to our center's
staff--ain't committees wonderful :)  Domain administrators delegate
responsibility for individual systems to postmasters (if they are running
mailers) or users (as is the case with my Macintosh).  Somewhere, there's a
document that says "YOU are responsible for the behavior of the IP number
we're assigning you!" but who reads documentation anymore (well, I guess if
you use WinDOZE, you still have to ;-)
 
At least in theory, if an individual system postmaster or administrator
fails to limit unacceptable behavior originating from a system, the domain
administrator should terminate that system's IP access, and failing that
the Internet supplier (that gets harder to identify from the outside)
should deny access to the whole domain.  I expect that would be a legal and
bureaucratic nightmare if anything ever got that far--right up there with
whether 'water buffalos' is a racial slur or merely a gratuitous, mild,
generic insult.
 
Fortunately, in my experience Internet postmasters are almost uniformly
Clark Kent (mild mannered) and WILL take action against users who are
clearly (sometimes only arguably) out of line.  So, the first line of
defense if your list starts getting mail that's inappropriate is:
 
1) Send a polite private message to the individual indicating that you
would appreciate moderation, and you'd hate to take further action but will
if you must.
 
2) If the person doesn't catch on, send one or more examples of problem
messages to [log in to unmask] that the messages originate from and ask
that action be taken at that end.  Usually that'll do it.
 
If the postmaster doesn't act, choices are:
 
1) lookup the name and email address of the domain addministrator (it's
been a LOOOOoooonnnnngggg time since I had a need or interest in doing
that, as I recall the definitive source is nic.ddn.mil--I'm probably out of
date, but someone here can certainly supply the info if you need it) and
push the problem to that level, or (probably more practical)
 
2) set your list private and owner approved subscribers and simply shut out
users who fail to limit contributions to the intent and purposes of the
list.
 
Step two has proven necessary in a few cases where the 'abusive and
offensive language' is a zealous excess on behalf of a cause (pro choice or
pro life, for example) that isn't appropriate to the topic of the list
rather than a barnyard vocabulary.  Postmasters and domain administrators
are likely to reply that they regret their user's behavior, but it is
within their institutions tolerance of academic freedom.
 
When it gets right down to it, I think network administrators would have a
heck of a time sustaining a formal legal challenge from a user claiming
infringement of free speech.  Have you checked out what's available in
alt.sex?  I suspect it would be hard for mere prose to top some of that
stuff; if folks like me are allowed on the jury, we'd likely say "heck, if
alt.sex is 'acceptable' then what's the fuss over a little salty language?"
 
It seems to me that the main problem posed by a poster with an uncontrolled
scatological flame thrower is the amount of irrelevant traffic generated by
complaints about it that can lead to a large fraction of useful list
members simply unsubscribing.  'Free speech' gives us the right to express
just about any opinion (even blatantly offensive ones) in just about any
language (even crude), BUT (key point) we don't have an unabridged right to
use someone else's "soap box" (that is you CAN exercise editorial control
over a given forum), and postmasters are free to determine who can't use or
not use their system.
 
With more than 20 million mailboxes (last number I saw) connected (one way
or another) to the Internet, there are surprisingly few 'problem users.'  I
hope things stay that way (I really haven't time to do much more than
cursory list administering, and I think that's true of most of us
volunteers).
 
/s Murphy A. Sewall                             (203) 486-2489 voice
   Professor of Marketing                       (203) 486-5246 fax