(From a Private Email):
>"...If the intention of the [DNA site] is to help ferrets, what's so bad
>about that?  Why get so preachy?"
 
A: Well, the last name IS Church...
 
Not long ago, I was eating dinner with some ferret people and the subject
of ethics came up.  I mentioned a business practice by someone well
respected in the ferret community, stating I thought it was unethical.
Not illegal, perhaps not even uncommon, certainly not necessary because
of their domination over the market, just unethical.  A heated debate
resulted from my remarks, and each time I started to respond, my
statement would be interrupted by another question, accusation, or denial
of my initial observation.  This went on for a few minutes until I became
angry, saying a debate was the exchange of information from oppositional
viewpoints, not interrupting a person each time they started a sentence.
The anger wasn't from being interrupted.  It was from being censored--I
wasn't being allowed to state my viewpoint without interruption (upon my
outburst, all members of the group allowed me to finish my point, then we
went on to other less volatile subjects like good little ferret people
should).
 
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death
your right to say it."  Voltaire.
 
That is what is ultimately the problem with a group like the Do Not Adopt
list.  It makes a case against a person without allowing them to state
their side.  It is the ultimate form of censorship in that one side gets
to say everything, and the other side may not even know they have been
blacklisted.  Presumably, the idea behind this list is to help ferrets by
keeping them out of the hands of people who, in one way or another, harm
them.  So what we have traded for this SMALL amount of safety is the due
process of law, the rights of the accused, and presumption of innocence
until proof of guilt has been established.  Those are essential
liberties, recognized by most of the world's democracies as elemental
human rights.
 
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty or safety."  Benjamin Franklin.
 
The FML is a somewhat unusual list.  While other mailing lists come and
go, the FML is still here.  I believe there is a singular reason for
this--a lack of censorship.  If anything, Bill bends past FML guidelines
in his attempt to refrain from censorship.  I know, because I feel Bill
has bent past that thin line between personal and private too many times.
Nonetheless, each one was a judgment call, and regardless of the emotions
I felt at the time, I always knew I liked the worst of the FML better
than the best of some of the more militaristic, fascist, demagogic lists
that operate elsewhere.
 
"I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of =
tyranny over the mind of man."  Thomas Jefferson.
 
Censorship is the ultimate form of tyranny over the minds of people.
There is a Biblical saying that you can judge the tree by its fruit.
What is the "fruit" of the FML?  Compare what you think to the "fruit"
of the Do Not Adopt list.  Sometimes what is said on the FML leaves a
bitter taste in the mouth of the reader, as it has done to me at times,
but people ARE given an opportunity to reply.  What taste would be left
from a group that judged without evidence, convicted without defense,
or sentenced without representation?  Such "fruit" is poisonous to all
those that value truth and freedom.
 
Here are some guidelines for you to judge the "fruit" of ANY group:
Does the group lack a balanced, fair method to air grievances about
unfair moderation?  Is the group tightly controlled by a single demagogic
personality that other members and moderators continually attempt to
appease?  Does the group judge those having no representation to present
their own side?  Do people within the group justify their actions with
the phrase, "It was done to better the lives of ferrets"?  If you have
said "yes' to ANY of these questions, here's the final test.  Write the
group moderators and ask them to change their rules.  If they force you
away, telling you to go play in some other litter box, then you have your
answer: the rules exist to preserve power, NOT to better the lives of
ferrets.
 
The ultimate arrogance of ANY group is the suggestion that admitting a
mistake "harms the ferrets" or the group itself.  Usually both are cited
with the popular "Why are you doing this?  It only hurts the group and
ferrets?" Such statements are true ONLY in the presence of tyranny, but
never where censorship is outlawed.  For example, the United States never
fell after thousands of scandals, ranging from the Teapot Dome to Agnew's
tax evasion, to Nixon's attempted cover-up, to Ken Starr spending 70+
million dollars to prove Clinton lied about, well, anything.  Not a
SINGLE administration in the history of the US has been without some
scandal or other.  Yes, the people making the mistakes generally have
problems, but the institution moves on, stronger for the experience.
The FML is a microcosm of the USA.  On the FML, people bicker, fight,
accuse, gossip, and generally make asses out of themselves, yet because
censorship is NOT allowed to 'tyrannize the minds of the people', it
remains a strong, vibrant voice in the world of ferrets.
 
I know this is preachy, but questions of ethics generally are.  They are
uncomfortable questions, and usually force someone to turn away from the
mirror in shame.  For the courageous, mistakes are admitted, rectified,
and life moves on.  If ANY group exercises censorship, in any manner,
shape, or form, then YOU have the ethical, even moral obligation to fight
it.  Groups like the Do Not Adopt list exercise the ultimate form of
censorship in that they completely remove the right of the accused to
speak for themselves.  But they are not alone.  ANY group that places
the rights of a few over the rights of the many is just as wrong.  The
ethical question is never about the DEGREE of tyranny, but the fact that
tyranny exists.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4140]