FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON INTERNET - SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT

[INFIDEL <wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au>]

[The following unpublished letter was sent to the "Australian" newspaper
on July 9. It is about the issue of freedom of expression on the Internet
network in Australia. It appears that conservative academics who hold
the strings would rather not see us children having some fun. They don't
like it when people call each other names and they would rather put an end to
it. Hold your wrists out, boys and girls, the grumpies want to teach you
a lesson and take away your net access if you've been naughty. ]



==============================================================================


RE: Electronic mail / Internet  inquiry at UNSW 


Dear Editor,

According to an article by Fiona Harari (Weekend Australian, June 26-27), "the 
University of NSW has launched an investigation into the implications of 
electronic mail following a spate of claims of sexual, racial and defamatory 
abuse during the last six months".

The concern, according to the convenor, Professor Hiller (head of the 
Department of Computer Science), is that since "messages are regularly sent to 
lists of people, it increases the possibility that some comments - by being 
sent in written form to large numbers of people - will be construed as 
defamatory".

There is no doubt his observation is true, of course, since more people of 
sensitive dispositions are being reached. His concern, unfortunately, is 
disturbing in the way it extends beyond that of a disinterested party.

Professor Hiller notes further that "publishing normally has some sort of 
checks on it. But there are no checks on this".

Drawing analogies between publishing on paper and mailing to a list is bound 
to give implausible results: there is a world of difference between the 
two. Moreover, his view that checks are necessary on computer network users 
shows that he has misapprehended the way the free computer network can, and 
has been, successfully running itself.

Writing to a list is not equivalent to publishing because every user can write 
to a list with great ease. There is no analogy with newspaper column space 
constraints, for instance, that could empower one individual over another. One 
simply learns to reply in a suitable way, at any length one wants, in the 
appropriate public forum. 

The inanity of abusive interchange is nowhere better understood than on the 
computer network. Private information on the network carries no weight: it is 
as ephemeral and insignificant as it is free to disseminate. Even when the 
user inadvertently admits the truth of accusations, their admission is itself 
hard to believe.

Writing that "so and so is a liar and a cheat" is actually uninteresting and 
only gains significance if a user chooses to call in outside authorities who 
more often than not do not understand the ephemeral nature of the network.

The medium offers unprecedented opportunity to exercise one's intelligence and 
democratic choice in a public forum. The option to ignore abuse is available 
to every user at the press of a button.  

Using a killfile, it is easy to organize oneself so that various kinds of 
messages are deleted automatically. One need never know of messages from a 
particular user, group of users, organization, even country. 

If one is afraid of reading particular words, one need never know of messages 
containing them. They can even be returned to the sender automatically.

Of course, it is a lot harder to prevent others from speaking ill of oneself, 
from thinking whatever they might.  But this does not stop people from wishing 
they could and trying to force their conceited and bloody-minded Utopian 
vision on others.

Dr. Olsberg, a member of the working party, is in no doubt as to the inquiry's 
aims: "to make people behave more considerately and responsibly towards 
colleagues".

Haven't we heard this line often enough in recent years? What is it about 
Australian bureaucracy and academia that produces these authoritarian yearnings?
Have things become so comfortable that truly open debate is now considered 
unnecessary in Australia?

The value of a free computer network has been proven elsewhere. During the 
putsch in the Soviet Union in August 1991, while other media faced crack-downs 
at the hands of pro-Communist authorities, the sheer insidiousness of the 
computer network ensured continued free dissemination of information between 
dozens of cities in the ex-Soviet Union as well as with the outside world.

The extent of its success can be measured by the fact that after Yeltsin had 
proclaimed his decrees, they were available only hours later even in Perth. 

In prudish Australia, the computer network community is  faced with another 
kind of authoritarian backlash, instigated by dim-witted bureaucratic types 
with the help of sociologists. 

Instead of intelligence and democratic choice, they prefer a culture where 
dobbing in, even on dubious grounds, is handsomely rewarded.

There is no reason why laws of defamation, harrassment or discrimination should 
be extended to the electronic medium. Although the world is at their 
fingertips, the individual has no power because everybody on the network has 
equal right of access (apart from organization managers).

There is no reason why using other peoples' log-on accounts to send abuse 
should lend substance to the abusive message. The question of blame or legal 
liability should not even arise, unless the misuse has serious consequences 
for the organization's computer facility, a point which is already a standard 
question of propriety.

Hiller, Olsberg and their ilk want to give power to those in whose hands it 
will be misused, while at the same time they piously pretend to be doing good. 

The new medium of the electronic computer network is the freest mode of 
communication. There is no reason why it should not stay that way.



Yours faithfully,




John Wojdylo
Mt. Pleasant, Western Australia
wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au