In a message dated 19/04/2001 17:12:06 GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> However, I notice a slight deviation from the rules you posted to me the
> other day. Now, together with adjudicating complaints from other
> subscribers, the management team is also going to punish "offensive
> language". This was not part of the rules you sent us the other day. The
> disciplinary process you sent us would have only been triggered had someone
> complained to List Managers that he is offended by something that was
> written on G_L. The previous rules (according to my reading) did not permit
> List Management to unilaterally decide that some language is offensive and
> then punish the author of the language. I hope you (List Managers)
> appreciate this change in language between the rules you sent us previously
> and these ones.
>
> This is a very substantive change. Rather than just saying that "offensive
> language" is not permitted (as you did previously), you have now put forth a
> mechanism to deal with "offensive language". I have no problem with it. I
> must warn List Management though that they are embarked on a very slippery
> slope here. To apply this rule effectively, List Management must be very
> clear as to what entails "offensive language". According to the dictionary I
> use, a wide range of 'attacks' can fall into this category of "offensive
> language". When List Management talk about "offensive language" do they
> regard lies as more tolerable than some name-calling? Is it more tolerable
> to lie about Karamba or Ebrima Ceesay or Saul Khan than to call Tombong
> names? These are some of the thorny issues that List Management will have to
> deal with. I trust that management will apply the rules consistently. I
> respectfully counsel you to look up some of the words we use before you jump
> to conclusions and start labeling certain language as offensive. I also hope
> that management adopt an aggressive stance against lies and character
> assassination of ordinary citizens that seek to highlight the murder and
> mayhem back home. In my book, that is more offensive than what I see certain
> List Managers complaining about.
>

KB,
Spot on,  Brother! The fact that what constitutes "offensive" language is
relative and in adjudication, one has to heavily rely on discretion, makes
"regulating" the List  with risible "rules" an exercise in not only futility
but also in subversion of meaningful engagement vis-a-vis what we sought to
exorcise out of our society. If we cannot come up with an exhaustive list of
what constitutes "offensive", then in the event of adjudication, discretion
shall be the order of the day - and we all know that discretionary powers are
the most abusable there is around.

I've always argued that in cyber-forums, there is simply no need for "rules"
- "guidelines", maybe for new comers. After all if subscribers do not wish to
be offended by certain posts by certain undesirable elements, they are at
liberty to delete all that come from the said undesirable elements. Who is
there to stop you from deleting the message? There is no Ayatollah with a gun
aimed at your head to force you to read the posting by force. In the
cyber-forums i'm been a  member of, there is ONLY a disclaimer disasociating
the Listserver from any libellous stuff that might come from subscribers.
This is the proper way to go about it. If people don't like what Hamjatta
writes, let them simply delete his messages and get on with their lives.
Similarly, if i expect to be showered with abuse from the likes of Mafy and
Essa Sey, i simply delete their mesages without suffering the heartyache of
reading them insulting me.

Cyberspace is a libertarian thing; and has to this extent answered a legal
conundrum that has engaged legal theorists all this time: how to
diffuse/eliminate arbitrariness and discretion in dispensation of justice.
We could avoid all this un-necessary brouhaha by simply forgetting about
"regulations" and let be adults be adults for once. Somehow, self-importance
and the need to "regulate" and "dictate"  others about the basics is a
tendency we will never avoid in Africa.
Hamjatta - Kanteh
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
URL: http://hometown.aol.co.uk/hamzakanteh/myhomepage/newsletter.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
You may also send subscription requests to [log in to unmask]
if you have problems accessing the web interface and remember to write your full name and e-mail address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------