Happy shiny censors holding hands

[Nobody <nobody@c2.org>]

McPaper USA Editorial, March 21st, 10A:

Racism on the Net

Even in the wildest reaches of the Internet, where anything goes
and most things have gone at least twice, the flow of free
information is sometimes at risk.

Take this ugly battle: on one side, a band of racists wants a
formal place on the Net to discuss "white power" music. On the
other, a cadre of Internet users believes white power deserves
no such setting.

At risk is the wondrous anarchy of the Internets newsgroups.
These exist by the thousands in an Internet subject called
Usenet, where they are divided in two.

In the "alternative" category, newsgroups careen about
essentially without limits. In the other, qualified newsgroups
are organized into eight subject "hierarchies": politics,
science, etc. Membership in these is preferred because, for the
most part, these hierarchies are carried by the Internet's
networks without question.

In this case, a fan proposed that the "recereation" hierarchy,
which includes music sections, add a white-power newsgroup. This
would put the music -- and its central tenets -- smack in the
middle of the Net.

Then the fight commenced. Although the Usenet contains no real
structure, it is self-regulating. Newsgroups proposed for a
hierarchy are subject to a discussion period and then balloting
by interested Netizens.

In this case, opponents argued that white-power advocates
should hold their discussions in one of the "alternative"
newsgroups; that the hierarchies constituted a special garden in
the Net's "village green"; and that white-power music deserved
no bench there.

To be sure, racism deserves neither respect nor credibility. But
in this case, exclusion may have unintended results.

If offensive ideas by themselves are a basis for exclusion, then
who else should be locked out? Some would make the same argument
against the hip-hop and music-poetry newsgroups, where harsh and
violent rap lyrics may be discussed.

Without their own newsgroup, the white-power devotees will only
contaminate other newsgroups with their static. Give them a lair
to call their own, and at least you know where not to tread.

There are advantages to Usenet's ad hoc self-governance. It helps
protect the system from outsiders seeking to control its
carbonated anarchy. But if the system then turns against speech,
the result is the same: Free exchange of ideas is constricted.
Even in the ether -- especially in the ether -- that's something
to beware.

We Gungir Din