Hi,
Interesting interpretation, but I think not.
Granted you might wish to actually look up the legal cases that support
the constitutional law concept known as time place and manner.
Quickly this refers to speech that might be protected in other places,
but because of the time, place, and manner, it is considered unprotected
speech by the supreme court.
Certainly as I said there is little jurisprudence that speaks to on line
settings, but increasingly, on-line is considered a place, and given that
to belong to this list one for the most part must agree to receive
communications from that list, it may be regarded as a captive audience
so to speak.
I have suggested that folks just block posts from Gabe, this is not
considered by some to be reasonable, because one must still read the
responses generated.
One of the more famous time place and manner cases involves an art exhibit
where individuals were invited to walk on the flag.
Of course you could choose not to visit the museum. Still the idea that
the exhibit was there at all was regarded as flaming enough.
In Gabe's case this seems to be a pattern. I have not been on many lists
with him, but on every one, this problem arises at one point or another.
He could choose to communicate differently, but he does not.
I can choose and often do choose to just not read his postings, until the
volume of back and forth exchanges make them unavoidable, on the off
chance something of importance rather than banter is being shared.
For example, I can think of no reason to read his thoughts on this
discussion assuming he has them, this is my choice.
This will not prevent him from behaving badly about my posts and others,
and I may have to see this should he choose to slander me or something.
No matter the reasoning, the previous pattern indicates that as much as
one wants to avoid Gabe,
at some point from volume alone, he in many ways forces himself on you,
grin.
As I say I prefer monitoring him over banning him, but something should be
done in my view.
Others choose to feel differently.
Karen
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Tom McMahan wrote:
Hi Karen.
For the examples you wrote about below to apply fully, you would have to be
in a captive, or simi captive situation. Well, You are where ever you are,
and I am in my house. Thus I can control what I listen to here, as can you,
and stop reaching for that deleet key!
But I think what I've said before still stands. It would be a hard choice,
but if it got bad enough here, I would make that choice without a problem.
So Gabe is obnoctious,, I don't think he's threatened anybody here yet has
he? And since his business has beenmentioned to some degree over the past
few days, well, again, that's his problem. He can choose to fail, just as
he can make choices to encourage success.
Right now, I am choosing to listen to the list in general, Since I read my
mail at least at the start one line at a time, it doesn't take long for me to
figure out if I want to read the rest of it or not. I wish I could use a
deleet key when I am out on the streets or at stores, or basically out in
public with some of the things I've heard people say. That is realy being in
the public. The list is just cyber. Like the tv or radio you have control
to the greater degree of what you allow into your house or workspace if your
work allows you to do internet and e-mail. Some don't.
So when I'm out in public and I'm hearing someone carrying on in a way I
don't wish to hear, I can simply change direction, thus "not listen." I
still get some words of what was said, otherwise how would I know that I
should avoid them? Same here, only faster, "deleet."
This still comes back to each one of us as an individual regardless of what
the list owner or moderators decide what to do.
I think though, I've just about said my piece on this matter such as it is.
Think we just see it a little differently. Think you are able to pick up on
the grays better than I do.
73s.
On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Actually yes and no.
The constitution as interpreted via the Supreme court jurisprudence does
put some limits on free speech.
One of them was referenced before. Gabe's behavior might be seen as
unavoidable, and comparable to shouting fire in a crowded room, where no
one could escape his words.
The courts say that this, like burning an American flag at a veteran's
event is too provocative for protection.
Indeed there is no legal discussion about on-line services, and indeed the
list is privately owned.
But if the list owner feels that Gabe's behavior is costing him traffic and
it is, he would be within his right to either monitor Gabe, my preference
truth be told, or ban him all together.
Unfortunately we cannot really avoid listening as other folks have pointed
out.
Karen
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Tom McMahan wrote:
> Oh he can shout all he wants to, but nobody has to listen. The
> constitution says "Free speech" not "obligation that anyone has to
> listen."
> On Aug 12, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>
> > Sad but true. Granted I prefer not censoring anyone's right to free
> > speech, and realize we are likely rewarding Gabe's obvious poor sense
> > of self, but even the constitutional legal history has cases when you
> > just cannot let someone shout what they wish to the decrement of
> > others.
> > Karen
> > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Josh de Lioncourt wrote:
> > > Karen Lewellen wrote:
> > > > NO!
> > > > do not do this. We need the wisdom of others, and leaving does
> > > > not > > solve
> > > > the problem. Perhaps blocking that address, so you still get and
> > > > con
> > > > contribute to the discourse here without the problem postings?
> > > > Karen
> > > > > Hi Karen,
> > > > I certainly share your sentiment. The problem is that its hard to
> > > > avoid > Gabe entirely, as he's very good at stirring up drama on
> > > > the list. Even > if you block his address, you'd have to block
> > > > many others to avoid the > problems entirely. I really do not want
> > > > to see this community deteriorate > any further, so I continue to
> > > > urge everyone to try to contact the > MacVisionaries
> > > > administrators, as i have done. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
>
>
