SEELANGS Administrivia - (was Re: Question about SEELANGS moderation)

[Alex Rudd]

Dear SEELangers,

A few days ago I was contacted by a list member, Tom Anessi,
who had some concerns he wished me to address.  I wrote to him
immediately to advise that I had little free time and would do
so as soon as possible.  Now that I have a moment, I am pleased
to respond (on-list, as Mr. Anessi requested).

This is a VERY LONG post.  I apologize for the length, but it
was necessary to cover everything I needed to cover.  Still, I
urge everyone to read it, as it impacts all subscribers and
calls for your input.

On Mon, 5 Nov 2001 11:27:12 -0500 Thomas Anessi said:
>Dear Alex Rudd,
>
>I read with some concern the last two postings by Jan Culik, who has
>indicated that he has been contacted twice about his posting on
>potential human rights abuses in the Czech Republic.

Permit me to begin by setting the context.

SEELANGS is ten years old.  During the last ten years more than
15,000 messages have been posted and distributed.  Anyone who
has been subscribed for an appreciable amount of time has gotten
a rough sense of the uses to which most list members put this list.
Newer subscribers, following their colleagues' leads, tend to put
the list to those same uses.  In fact, it has always been considered
good list etiquette on any discussion list to " lYurk and learn
what's acceptable before posting to the list."  That quotation is
taken from:

http://list-etiquette.com/

Mr. Culik did not follow that sage advice.  I first heard from him
on November 2nd.  He wrote to the list owners' address asking how
he could post messages to SEELANGS.  At the time, he was not
subscribed to the list.  Before I had the chance to check my e-mail
and respond to his query, he had figured it out on his own.

Mr. Culik subscribed to SEELANGS on November 2nd at 7:17pm, New
York time.  Rather than waiting to get a sense of the uses to which
you, the long-time and committed subscribers, put this list, Mr.
Culik promptly composed and sent his message titled "The Czechs
prosecute political views" just 12 minutes later, at 7:29pm, New
York time.

I contacted Mr. Culik only once about his first post to the list
(not twice as Mr. Anessi indicates).  As I am certain it would
interest some of you, here is the text of the message I sent to
Mr. Culik (off-list):

--- Begin ---

On Sat, 3 Nov 2001 02:12:47 -0000 you said:
>Please let me know how I could post messages on this list.

I note that you've figured it out by yourself.

Now that you have posted to SEELANGS, I must tell you that your
post was inappropriate inasmuch as it does not conform to the
purpose of the SEELANGS list.

In the days following the tragedy of 11 September, one of our
list members posted to SEELANGS the musings of two commentators
dealing with what had happened.  That generated a response from
others and I was asked to clarify our purpose.  Below please
find that post from me and give it a read.

If you'd like to discuss the Czech language, SEELANGS is an
appropriate forum for that.  If, on the other hand, you want
to discuss the Czech criminal justice system, SEELANGS is not
the appropriate forum for that.

If you have any questions about this, let me know.

--- End ---

Below my signature, I included for Mr. Culik a copy of the
message I posted to SEELANGS on September 13th.  It is a
long message and I will not paste it into this one.  If
you'd care to read it again, you can send the command:

GETPOST SEELANGS 14817

in the body of e-mail to:  LISTSERV at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU

and LISTSERV will mail it to you.

It was in response to this message from me that Mr. Culik
posted to SEELANGS expressing his bemusement by what he
termed my "gentle reprimand."  In that same message, Mr.
Culik advised he would be signing off the list.  He did so.

As setting that context took several minutes for me to write and,
I'm sure, a few minutes for you to read, here again is the first
paragraph of Mr. Anessi's message, followed by his second:

>I read with some concern the last two postings by Jan Culik, who has
>indicated that he has been contacted twice about his posting on
>potential human rights abuses in the Czech Republic.
>
>I have read the guidelines for posting to SEELANGS and cannot find
>the justification for such action on the basis of these rules of
>etiquette.

I contacted Mr. Culik only once (the message I showed you above),
not twice.  I am not sure why you would question "the justification"
for a list owner's writing to a subscriber.  I am sure you noted
that writing to Mr. Culik about his post was the only action I took
at that time.

After Mr. Culik's second post to the list, he unsubscribed.  He had
been subscribed to SEELANGS for a grand total of 24 hours and 7
minutes.

So, to recap, Mr. Culik subscribed to the list for the express
reason of posting a message that did not conform to SEELANGS'
purpose, reacted insultingly to my informing him of that fact
(in private e-mail to me he signed off with "Best wishes for your
continued unperturbed existence"), and finally, before signing
off, he posted to the list to apply the label of "political
correctness" to my off-list note to him, thereby hoping, I'm sure,
to stir up the sentiments of some here against me.

Do I need such a person subscribed to SEELANGS?  No, I don't think
so.  He contributed little positive and much negative.  So yes,
I configured LISTSERV such that Mr. Culik would not be able to
resubscribe from his own e-mail address.

What's my authority for doing that?  It's right there in the
Welcome message:

--- Begin ---

<snip>                                     The list owner reserves
the right to take any action he feels appropriate to ensure the
smooth operation of the list.

--- End ---

But it didn't end there.  Mr. Culik, discovering he could not
re-join the list using his own e-mail address, used another one
to join the list and post his third and last message, which he
did before then unsubscribing that address.  In that message,
Mr. Culik accused me of censorship because I had prevented his
re-joining with his own e-mail address.  "Censor" is a very
convenient label to hang on someone in my position, perhaps too
convenient.  In this case, I suggest it is both incorrect and
insulting.  I barred Mr. Culik's access to the list based on
his insulting and inappropriate behavior *after* he posted his
first message to the list.  That first message, remember, drew
only the message I quoted for you above and nothing more.

I would like to comment on something Mr. Culik wrote in his
third message to the list, the one sent from an e-mail address
that did not belong to him.  Referring to "the list administrators,"
he wrote:

>I would like to remind them that freedom of speech is
>indivisible and that by such action they are making
>themselves look ludicrous.

I do not know whether English is Mr. Culik's first language,
so perhaps when he wrote "indivisible" he meant to say
something else, such as "inalienable."

In any event, I infer from Mr. Culik's comment that he
believes (as perhaps some of you do, too) that there is
in the world some natural law regarding free speech and
that this natural law applies to SEELANGS for some reason.
This natural law (i.e. a law occurring in nature and not
enacted by any legislative body) apparently reflects the
notion that all speech is entitled to be free, in that no
restrictions of any kind may be placed on it, including
those related to its content, its manner of delivery, its
time of delivery, or its place of delivery.

With all due respect to Mr. Culik and to like-thinkers,
there is no such natural law.

SEELANGS is administered in the United States.  The server
we use to run the list is in the United States and I am in
the United States.  I am amenable to service of process only
in the United States and only courts in the United States would
have personal jurisdiction over me.  Accordingly, if you want
to look to some standard to determine whether speech may or may
not be restricted in the context of the SEELANGS discussion list,
you must look to United States law.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads,
in pertinent part, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging
the freedom of speech."  As Congress makes laws only for the
federal government, the First Amendment applied at first only
to the federal government.  Its protection was later extended
to the many states by the United States Supreme Court through
the Due Process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here's something many people don't understand about the First
Amendment:  Not all speech is protected.  Categories of
unprotected speech in the United States include: obscenity;
fraudulent misrepresentation; defamation; advocacy of
imminent lawless behavior; and "fighting words."  Free speech
is *not* indivisible (or inalienable or whatever he meant).

Here's something else most people don't understand about the
First Amendment:  It applies only to governmental action.  I'm
not the government.  I'm a LISTSERV list owner.  It doesn't
apply to the restrictions on speech I may impose on SEELANGS.

Furthermore, you're subscribed to SEELANGS of your own free
will having read the Welcome message.  No one is curtailing
your ability to express yourself generally.  Instead, we
impose basic guidelines designed to maximize the usefulness
of this list for all members, members who subscribed to
discuss Slavic languages and literatures.  So even if you
tried to characterize my actions as governmental (though I
am not employed by any government or governmental entity
and do not act with such authority), all our restrictions on
speech (e.g. no flames) are reasonable and tailored sufficiently
narrowly to survive a challenge on free speech grounds.

Mr. Anessi continues:

>I understand the context in which such "censorship" of the list might
>have been undertaken, given the long and emotional on-list debate over
>Sergei Oushakine's posting about reactions to Sept. 11. However, I do
>not see these more recent postings in the same light.
>
>In just the past few months SEELANGS has been a forum for discussions of
>Stalinism, Soviet Urban Planning, and the effects of Intifada violence
>on Ukrainian Immigrants in Israel, all of which fall outside all but the
>loosest interpretation of the SEELANGS topic area.

I see that you're confused by the appearance on SEELANGS of such
topics for discussion absent any negative reaction on my part.

The fact is, as I've mentioned here several times, although I am
the list owner here, I lead a busy life and do not have the time
to monitor every post to SEELANGS.  Sometimes I'm able to read
the list regularly for a few days and sometimes I'm not.  There's
a very good chance, for example, that I'd have never read Mr.
Culik's original post to the list, and would never have responded
as I did as a result (having not seen it), if he had not written
to me off-list first asking how one posts to the list.  Because
he asked me that question, I chose to check and see whether he had
succeeded in figuring it out on his own before responding to him.
In other words, he brought himself to my attention.

>I also understand, however, that this is not a list for all issues
>related to the politics of Eastern and Central Europe

That's a healthy starting point.

>My questions are as follows:
>
>On what basis are list users to know when our postings violate the
>guidelines for what "fits within our topic area"?  I checked the web
>page "http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/"
>to determine what the written guidelines state, and I found only this:
>
>"It is an academic discussion list and is aimed primarily at
>teachers and students of Russian and other Slavic and
>East European languages and literature. It exists to facilitate
>discussion of topics of interest to those people (emphasis mine)."
>
>According to this definition, I agree that Sergei Oushakine may have
>been out of line with his Chomsky posting in September, but I don't see
>how the Czech human rights issue violates the spirit of the guidelines.

If you don't see it, then perhaps the guidelines are in need of
revision and clarification.

>Also, on what basis is the choice to reprimand made?  Is content the
>sole criterion or do other list users' responses to the posting play
>a role?

Reprimand was Mr. Culik's word.  I showed you the actual text of
my message to him above.  Do you still choose to characterize it
as a reprimand?  To my mind, I was simply offering guidance on the
appropriate use of SEELANGS to a brand new subscriber.

To answer your question directly, though, the decision to write
such a note to a subscriber is mine alone, made without input
from, or at the urging of, list members.  The sole criterion is
content, in that I evaluate the content in light of my understanding
of the purpose for this list.

Lest you think such notes from me are a daily occurence, the fact
is that I can't recall writing more than a couple such off-list
messages ever.

>        Given that the list is officially a "non-moderated list", I
>would assume that intervention on your part is carried out with a
>certain reluctance, such as in cases in which the smooth operation
>of the list is compromised or in response to clear violations of
>the list rules.

Your assumption is quite correct.

>I would appreciate a public response to these questions, in spite of the
>fact that I'm raising them first with you as list owner privately.
>Judging by the number of "off topic" postings over the past year and
>responses to them (or lack thereof), it would appear that their is no
>clear dividing line between what is and what is not appropriate.
>People seem to often object to postings only because they strike a nerve
>because of the political views expressed or implied (Prof. Aronson)
>or the respondent's personal situation  (Prof. Borenstein- who lives
>near the former WTC).
>
>If you read the content of Prof. Aronson's response, beginning with
>"here we go again", I think you will see that he has placed the
>posting within a much narrower context than is fair to the person who
>made the original posting.  It was about censorship (which is related
>to literature, especially in E. Europe) and touches on a debate that has
>been growing in the Czech Republic about the limits of tolerance.
>Previous postings have addressed the situation of the Roma in the Czech
>Republic, for example.

Your conclusion that Mr. Culik's original post was "about censorship"
illustrates the difficulty that I, or anyone, would have in writing
strict guidelines related to appropriate subject matter for SEELANGS.
That's an awfully broad characterization, and if that were the only
conclusion, then the link between censorship and literature is not
particularly difficult to make (though there remains the distinction
between actual works of literature and the environment in which such
works are created).  I read Mr. Culik's post much more narrowly, as
a commentary and critique of the criminalization of speech by the
Czech authorities in the context of the attacks of September 11 and
their aftermath.  In that light, it's inappropriate subject matter.

>Lastly, I'm sorry that I feel compelled take up your time with this
>issue.  I appreciate the work you do for us as list subscribers.

I appreciate your saying so, especially as this reply has taken me
quite a long time to compose.

>But if those posting are receiving warnings from you, I feel it is
>appropriate to first address my concerns to you.

I am happy to address your concerns, though as I mentioned above,
I do not normally make a practice of writing such messages to list
members.

>My reason for writing is not merely to gripe, but to suggest
>that a more 'transparent' process/basis for censure be established.
>I receive conference postings from Sergei Oushakine via the AWSSGRAD-L
>listserv. Many of these postings never make it to SEELANGS. Both the
>list and Sergie suffer from his having sparked an an emotional
>debate during an particularly emotional moment within a forum that is
>not well suited for handling this type of discussion.  Isn't it
>possible that those who have concerns about postings could be
>encouraged to first write OFF-LIST or to the list owner, rather
>than engage in public censure?

First, regarding Sergei Oushakine, you should all know that his
posts are no longer seen on SEELANGS because he chose to unsubscribe
and is no longer with us on this list.  I did write to him off-list
a few days after he left and I extended an offer to return, but he
declined.  So, I'm not sure what he has to do with the "censure"
question.  His leaving was his decision.

Second, as there is more than one way in which the word "censure"
may be construed, let's define it here as "an official reprimand."
SEELANGS does have guidelines in place and they exist for the
benefit of its members.  These guidelines are violated quite often
(despite my pleas that they be observed), such as when a subscriber
posts a personal message to the entire list or includes the entire
original message in a reply posted to the list.  In response to
such messages, when I see them (because I don't always see them),
I do send messages to the "offending" list members, gently reminding
them of our guidelines and asking them to be more cognizant of them
in the future.  With near unanimity, list members to whom I've
written such notes have reacted positively and have made an effort
to comply with our guidelines.

That procedure is not what I think Mr. Anessi would call "transparent."
You can't see me doing it.  I deal only with the individuals posting
the messages that don't conform to our guidelines.  It's all done off-
list.

Do you really want me to send such messages on-list?  What a
distraction they would be!  There are nearly 1,200 subscribers to
this list.  When one of them commits an unintentional breach of
our guidelines, why should the hundreds of other subscribers have
to deal with the e-mail message containing the gentle reminder?

And if such messages were not posted to the list for all to see,
how else could the process be any more transparent?

Yes, I'm aware that I'm not addressing Mr. Anessi's primary concern
with the above.  But that's the context in which it must be addressed.

Mr. Anessi wants clarification of our guidelines *as they relate to
permissible subject matter*.

>Does Prof. Aronson's display the respect for one's peers that one would
>hope would ground any dialog among academics?  I think not. However,
>perhaps he was also reacting a bit hastily and emotionally. We are still
>living through tough times. These points are only offered as food for
>thought, but they are the kind of issues that need to be addressed if
>SEELANGS is to operate as a non-moderated list on the basis of a clear
>and fair set of rules.

In my opinion, Prof. Aronson's message reflected his frustration
at once again seeing something posted to this list grossly inconsistent
with its purpose, and so soon after I had posted my message in mid-
September (message number 14817 referenced above).  I was frustrated,
too, though unlike Prof. Aronson, I knew that Mr. Culik had joined
the list only minutes before sending off his message and had not seen
my earlier message.

In any event, Mr. Anessi is still seeking that clarification.  In
my message of mid-September, I wrote:

--- Begin ---

<snip>             SEELANGS exists to facilitate discussion of Russian
and other Slavic and East European languages and literatures and for
no other reason.  If list members stray from that purpose now and again
it's never further than to post a job announcement or an apartment for
rent, but it's always got something to do, even tangentially, with why
the average list member is subscribed.  <snip>

--- End ---

As I hope you can see, I believe that in large measure the purpose of
this list should be defined by what its subscribers expect to find here.
The name of this list is "SEELANGS: The Slavic and East European
Languages and Literatures List."  I would assume that one seeking to
join a discussion list to discuss automobile repair would not choose
SEELANGS.  By the same token, I would assume that one seeking to join
a discussion list to discuss Slavic and East European Languages and
Literatures would not expect to see on SEELANGS topics that diverge
so greatly from that express purpose, such as the terrorist attacks
on the United States or the criminal justice system in the Czech
Republic.

I have always thought that this list's purpose is self-evident.
I have consistently received feedback from its members (off-list)
supporting that belief.

Just as an example, after Mr. Culik posted to this list to complain
about my note to him, I received the following unsolicited message
from a list member:

--- Begin ---

Dear Mr. Rudd:

I'm writing to say I support the SEELANGS policy of restricting discussion
to questions of linguistics or literature and discouraging political
postings.  The recent attempt of the Czech government to censor a fascist
politician's public  support for Bin Laden can be publicized, protested,
and discussed in other venues.  Innumerable discussion groups dedicated to
current events and contemporary society are happy to have a posting that
provokes vigorous exchanges.  SEELANGS policy has nothing to do with
censorship or political correctness.  Not everything that happens in
Central or Eastern Europe is germane, that's all.

Thanks for your good work.
best regards,
<identity snipped>

--- End ---

In my opinion, that's the mainstream view here.  Because that's
the mainstream view here, and because this list has functioned
with few such blow-ups over subject matter in its ten years of
existence, I question whether a further clarification of our
list's purpose is needed.

But, if some of you feel it is, if you think the parameters need
to be defined more clearly, then I want you to know that I am
open to defining them more clearly.  However, since apparently
I don't know what you want, I would ask for your assistance.

Please send me (off-list) your thoughts and ideas on how our
list guidelines could be modified to meet your needs.  I would
ask that you send any such messages on or before December 1st.
My hope is that date will allow for sufficient time to respond
by anyone wanting to do so and will also prevent this issue
from dragging on forever.  Once I've received all comments and
suggestions, I will review them and perhaps engage in a few
off-list discussions with their authors to be sure I understand
the concerns.  From there, we'll see what happens, but I don't
want to impose on the list membership a stated purpose for
SEELANGS' existence that varies significantly from the one they
joined the list expecting, so any change would be posted here
for comment prior to being implemented.  I hope to have this
issue resolved one way or the other by the end of the year.

You may reach me off-list at:  SEELANGS-Request at LISTSERV.CUNY.EDU

>yours,
>
>Tom Anessi

I hope this reply has been helpful.

- Alex, list owner of SEELANGS    seelangs-request at listserv.cuny.edu
....................................................................
Alex Rudd                ahrjj at cunyvm.cuny.edu            ARS KA2ZOO
{Standard Disclaimer}    http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Use your web browser to search the archives, control your subscription
  options, and more.  Visit and bookmark the SEELANGS Web Interface at:
                http://members.home.net/lists/seelangs/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------