Re: Bozofilters
Peter writes:
>Mike now admits that EFF came close to supporting censorware,
To be precise, Peter -- and I know you value getting the facts right -- EFF
never supported censorware and our board was formally against doing so. But
some board members, notably Esther Dyson, made public statements that could
be construed as such.
This is what I meant by walking close to the line -- not close in actually
supporting censorware, but close in the sense of appearing to some people
to support it. Appearance, not reality -- a distinction that a student of
Buddhism should have no trouble with.
>(One of those whom Mike most unkindly attacked was an Australian who
>could see what was coming in Australia where there is no First Amendment
>and who was thus naturally unappreciative of any argument that seemed to
>favor censorware or so-called ``voluntary'' rating systems.)
I never attacked any Australian whatsover, so far as I can recall. The only
Australian I recall from that dialog is Irene Graham, whose anticensorship
work I expressly and consistently admired.
My experience with Peter Junger is that he seemed to be easily misled by
certain tactics. Specifically, when other folks recycled old private e-mail
from me by posting it publicly, Peter made disapproving noises about my
having posted such things to the list (he didn't realize that I had not in
fact posted those sentiments to the list). He made pronouncements about how
my having said such things proves something or other about why the public
dislikes lawyers, despite the fact that a) I had sworn off responding
directly to certain attackers before Peter even showed up, in part because
I disliked how easily they could tempt me into incivility, and b) I'd have
been intemperate at being called a liar even if I had never gone to law
school.
(Note that I have do not take it personally if someone merely disagrees
with me -- I don't think I have any special access to the truth. Readers of
this conference know that I get along fine with Kent Stuckey, who has
disagreed with me many times but never called me a liar -- to name one
example.)
It was Peter's having been gulled on this point that convinced me of the
importance of announcing it publicly, when you have bozofiltered someone --
only when this action becomes generally known can you ensure that someone
like Peter is not misled by the strategic publication of one's old e-mail.
>In general Mike acted
>like a trial lawyer at a deposition where there was no judge to keep
>him in line. He was rude, asked misleading questions, mischaracterized
>what his opponents were saying, and generally acted like a bully, but he
>did not lie.
I suppose I should thank Peter for clearing this up.
But I am distressed that Peter bought into the assertion that my
mischaracterizations of opponents' views, if that is what happened, was
deliberate. I think Peter's inclination to view me this way speaks of his
predispositions more than of my actual words.
It may be the case in Peter's world that when X mischaracterizes Y's view,
it is only because X is a lawyer and choosing deliberately to do so. It is
not, however, true in mine.
Finally, Peter joined the conversation in medias res -- he was apparently
unaware that my acerbity in that particular conversation was a function of
having been publicly and privately attacked for years by the same people to
whom I was responding.
I will swear under oath, if called upon to do so, that I have never
deliberately misrepresented any censorware opponent's point of view. The
*presumption* on Peter's part that any misrepresentation on my part was a
deliberate one is, I think, a function of what he is personally inclined to
believe about lawyers generally, and a function of his having read some
other people's accusations pretty uncritically. I think it is safe to say
that one wouldn't want Peter on one's jury in a criminal case.
>Now the really sad thing is that when Mike's opponents, not understanding
>that a lawyer doesn't think that he is lying when he insists on responding
>to an argument that his opponents did not make and repeatedly denied ever
>making, called him a liar, he totally lost control.
To me the really sad thing is how easily Peter Junger jumped to conclusions
then, and how difficult it is to raise the possibility with him that he may
have made an error, as I believe he did in this case. Fortunately, Peter
only rarely if ever jumps to conclusions in other contexts.
If I were a certain kind of person, I'd accuse Peter of being a liar, of
exemplifying the worst kind of arrogant lawyer, etc. Instead, I will assert
that he is factually inaccurate here, and that he is not amenable to
resolving the misunderstandings that I believe he labors under here.
--Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...."
--Walt Whitman
Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 212-888-7811.
His book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at
http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial thread listing: