In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, John Knight wrote:

> This request was made some time ago, and about 25 of the men who were
> "bounced" from Femisa responded.  If anyone else was bounced but didn't 
> respond, could you now do so in order to get a complete list to Robert?
> 
> (1) Tell anyone who was bounced from that forum (me, you, Nelson...) to let
> you know they were.
> 
> (2) Let's investigate the funding of FEMISA. The issue here is that if FEMISA
> gets any federal funding, via a university or other source, then it can't
> (IMHO) discrminate or censor on the basis of sex.
> 
> The first  step is what I am doing: contacting the president of the Colorado
> University that Femisa posts from and see how "private" FEMISA is.

Actually, Colorado is an ERA state, which forbids all forms of 
discrimination on the basis of sex.  Even if it doesn't get a nickle of 
federal funding, they are in violation of Colorado State laws.

In addition, internet bandwidth is, in part, federally funded.

Finally, even if they came through an independent ISP, revoking the posting
privilidges of one participant in an open forum for anything other than
a crime related posting (copyright violation, solicitation for drugs, sex,
arms, confession to a felony...), would constitute a an editorial practice
for which one could be civilly liable.

On the other hand, there are members of this list who are advocating felonies
in their postings.  If such solicitations are posted to FEMISA, they 
could appropriately revoke posting/forwarding.

> Second, we should contact a First Amendment Rights outfit, some of which are
> on-line. They maya be able to bring pressure on FEMISA, which DOES show it's
> politically-driven slip.

There are not a lack of forums on the net at which an integrated discussion
of these issues is possible.  National policy is more likely to be 
formulated on a newsgroups such as soc.women than on a mailing list like 
FEMISA.

> Third, and I know you hate this so I'll do it: we should make a stink in the
> media. The "Net", feminism, gender issues, angry white men, censorship in
> cyberspace: all these and more are "sexy" topics to the media.

By all means, go to the media.  They might enjoy some of your other postings,
and might even reprint them.

> There are probably hundreds of feminists lists around. Most bash men and,
> directly or indirectly, add to the demise of men, fatherhood and families. If
> taxes are used to fund such forum, then men, literally, are paying to be
> abused.

Tread lightly here.  Even the ".com" postings are using federally 
subsidized carrier links.  Granted, the subsidy isn't like it was in the 
days of the NSF, but such thinking could be used to silence this group.

> Could you request any men who've been banned from FEMISA to contact
> you...then you post me separately?

Is there a "guidelines" document?  There are some groups where posting 
guidelines must be carefully followed.  Posting x-rated documents to
k-12 groups can get you shut off at the ISP.  If they are chartered to
discuss improving the quality of life for women, and you propose a
document which advocates putting women at a disadvantage, then 200 men
post "seconds", you have abused their forum.  It would be like a feminist
advocating that since 90% of all women are CPs, that Men are too 
irresponsible to raise children.... and this was followed with 200 
ratifications, you would justifiably say "since you can't stay on the
subject, we will not forward your subsequent postings".

> There is a story here. I'd rather be going after FEMISA than arguing with
> men.

Starting a fight (at whatever level) does not advance our goals, or theirs.
Identifying areas where there is a common ground (redefinition of male 
role models, differentiating between abusive drunken husbands and 
responsible, productive husbands - encouraging the responsible men and
taking appropriate action against the abusive ones....

Such "common ground" discussions will yield results, including revisions
to existing marital law.  Finger pointing and trying to shut down each 
others's lists will only result in censorship of the entire internet.

> -Robert
> 
> 

	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Sun Dec 17 06:05:18 1995
Status: O
X-Status: