Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:16:05 -0400
From: Gene Galin <>
Subject: Andrew George, PhD falsely accuses Chatlist administrator of being racist
Bless his heart!
Received the following email from Andrew George, PHD yesterday. This is his response to the email sent to him in reply to his original email.
Subject: anon
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 08:24:56 -0400
From: Andrew George <>
We have not met. I appreciate the chat-list, and I hope you’re doing this for the right reasons, but I have a very hard time with your position.
I do not accept your logic:
“Don’t underestimate” — it’s not a matter of web literacy, you are providing a forum for bigoted, bald-faced liars. Why?
“Marketplace” that’s bogus. Where do you ever see a “marketplace” where the products/brands are anonymous.
“Anonymous Protects” for every anonymous reaction to a racist or homophobic email, there are 10 racist, homophobic emails” Not a balance, nor should we have to work to “balance” racist, homophobic, anti-democratic, assholes. You are putting the burden on the victims of bigotry!!
“Editorializing?” Anonymity has nothing to do with editorial content. By that logic, a racist posting nasty emails is protecting his identity because it helps with the presentation of the message? No, that’s ridiculous. Clearly, someone is anonymous not because they’re want to add to the editorial impact of their message, but because they are embarrassed by it, and they would never try to TROLL this list if they had to use their real names.
“Audiences” don’t give equal weight”— Well, yeah, unless someone creates a public forum and lets assholes like Kish or the “Tax”guy post whatever and however much they want! (But, who knows, they may be the same guy!)
And, lastly, I have to say I can’t believe you would bring up the first amendment. If you know anything about free speech, you know it is not absolute. For example, if you provide a forum for racist assholes who walk off and shoot some college students in the heads because of a parking dispute, you better get your court-clothes ready because someone is going to drag you into court! Free speech is not absolute!
“As Judge Hand recognized, democracy rests on our faith in citizens’ ability to decide for themselves where truth lies in public discourse.” do you realize your forum, providing a cover for racist, bigoted assholes, is precisely what HAND was arguing against! That the citizens must have the ability to find the truth— which you undermining by allowing anonymous bigots to intentionally post inexcusable lies!
Given the thinly vailed, poorly articulated defense of bigoted posting on YOUR list, I am left to believe you are intentionally providing a forum for known racist trolls.
Andrew George, PhD
Boothe Hill Rd
Chatham Co
Subject: Re: Taylor Kish
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:32:02 -0400
To: Andrew George <>
My Take on Using “Real Names”
October 10th, 2013 ·
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 16:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gene
Subject: My Take on Using “Real Names”
Not much has changed since 2007.
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:13:10 -0400
From: “Gene”
My Take on Using “Real Names”
The discussion about using ‘real names’ on the chatlist [and bulletin board] comes up every several years (usually around election time).
Please don’t underestimate the chatlist [and bulletin board] member. Chatlist [and bulletin board] members are intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. They can see it is anonymous. They can evaluate its anonymity along with its message, as long as they are permitted, as they should be, to read that message. And then, once they have done so, it is for them to decide what is “responsible,” what is valuable, and what is truth.
Protecting anonymity is necessary to induce some authors to contribute valuable information to the marketplace of ideas.
Anonymous authors historically have made contributions to the ‘progress of mankind’. There are benign reasons that an author may choose to remain anonymous: fear of retaliation or reprisal, the desire to avoid social
ostracism, the wish to protect privacy, or the fear that the audience’s biases will distort the meaning of the work.
‘Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority’ without which public discourse would certainly suffer.
An author’s decision to remain anonymous is an exercise of autonomy over choice of content, and “an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose his or her true identity.’ The decision to remain anonymous is an editorial judgment like any other, which makes choosing to omit one’s name no different than choosing to omit an opposing viewpoint.
Speakers may use the shield of anonymity for a variety of purposes, only some of which may be consistent with the public good; at the same time, audiences may not accord anonymous speech as much value as attributed speech.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Cotter-Lidsky.doc
‘the First Amendment, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, confers upon authors a right to speak anonymously or pseudonymously, even when this right interferes with audiences’ attempts to decode their messages.’
From the Lidsky and Cotter paper –
Judge Learned Hand once famously wrote that “the First Amendment . . . presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection. To many this is, and always will be, folly; but we have staked upon it our all. As Judge Hand recognized, democracy rests on our faith in citizens’ ability to decide for themselves where truth lies in public discourse.
Gene
Chatlist [and bulletin board] Moderator
Subject: Taylor Kish
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:15:41 -0400
From: Andrew George <>
Gene,
It’s getting old— you have a Troll issue on your list.
I suggest either dropping him or requiring people to use real names.
Either way, by allowing him to uncritically post complete bullshit, you are endorsing those ideas.
I don’t have a problem with that since it’s your list, but if that’s the kind of list it is, I’m going to drop off and look for an alternative.
Thanks,
Andrew George