From: Michael Sims To: Seth Finkelstein Subject: Re: Confirmation of permission Cc: cwp@censorware.org Reply-to: jellicle@inch.com Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 13:51:57 -0400 > > Message-Id: <199902130401.XAA06495@arutam.inch.com> > > From: "Michael Sims" > > To: Seth Finkelstein > > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 23:01:52 -0400 > > If you think anything I've written to you qualifies as dirty laundry, > > you're welcome to post it. > > I wasn't planning on using any of the private e-mail (doesn't > meet my fraud/harassment exception), but if I have your permission > per above, yes I do. > I was thinking along the lines of establishing you agreed with me > that Godwin was lying, so it's not a factual dispute, and then going > into the political-sacrifice aspect. That probably would mean > material like the message below, your original proposed article, and > some of the stuff in the aftermath of it being turned down. I recall > the situation as Jonathan and you against a rebuttal, Jamie and me > for it, and I don't remember Jim or Bennett stating a view (note I > haven't reread all the relevant messsages). Stupid me, I deferred to > you, and I regret it now as history gets rewritten. > "Godwin is immune from the consequences of lying," because > people don't stand up to him. What you've done has added insult to > injury. No, Godwin is immune - whether we attempt to call him on it or not - because he has a famous name and we do not. Seth, your memory is woefully inadequate. I always supported writing a rebuttal to Godwin - not because I felt particularly personally offended, but rather because he was spreading more pro-censorware crap that ought to be opposed. Indeed, my very first email after I read the Salon piece was, guess what, a sketch of a proposed letter/article submission. (Date sent: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:28:09 -0400 (EDT)). Have you forgotten the three or four versions of "Little Birdies" that I wrote, on my own time, with very limited assistance from you or anyone else (Jamie provided some good feedback), because I wanted to rebut Godwin in the forum he had published in? My concern has always been about *effectiveness* - a rebuttal on www.nowhere.com is useless because Salon readers would not see it. Further, if it was written by you, it would likely appear as an incomprehensible screed, without background or context, rather than a reasoned response to something that is no more than an article for an online magazine. I thought I had a much better chance of writing something that would pass muster with Salon's editors. After having it turned down, in part I believe to your badgering of Rosenberg, I lost steam. I'd put many hours into writing that article. I didn't see - and don't - how anyone, including you, could benefit from a section on censorware.org (or anywhere else) called "Why we hate Mike Godwin". It's *unprofessional*. That's the work of a 12-year-old. Nobody reading it will have read the Salon article, and vice-versa. Nobody cares. The public doesn't even care that the President has committed indecencies with cigars and interns in the Oval Office, and you think anyone cares about Mike Godwin's alleged foibles? Further, and in the end determinative, censorware.org is a joint venture. Respect for the other people involved compels me to have more or less unanimous consent for materials posted there. I did not sense such assent for a huge diatribe against Godwin. I did sense assent for, and contributed to producing, a fine introductory essay, which is still linked from the front page, and which still says: "An alliance is an alliance. It is a testament to the hideousness of the CDA that such disparate groups came together to fight it. But when the fight is over, the members' different agendas reappear. We now see the same people and groups who travelled in the guise of "civil liberties supporters," because they opposed the CDA, beginning to shill for the censorware industry today: Mike Godwin; Esther Dyson; the EFF; the CDT; Microsoft. These people and groups are still following their bottom line - whether they make money with books, speaking engagements, pulling in corporate contributions, or trying to control yet another part of the internet - but for people who value the freedom to speak and read over corporate profits, it is a disappointing turn." It's the same situation with Godwin's book. While there are inaccuracies there, we have no means of responding, no entre into the book-publishing field or the book-criticizing field. But see: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0812928342/qid%3D918918042/002 -3577234-5080847 for one response. The fact is that your obsession with Michael Godwin, EFF net-lawyer and (from his picture) a fat computer nerd, has blinded you utterly. Observing that there are some pathways which are open to some people (like famous net-lawyers) and not open to others is not a cop-out, it's reality, smacking you in the face. [quoting my old email] > > Scott - It looks like other members of The Censorware Project > > will be writing at least the first draft, I've recused myself for > > reasons that will be clear. We'd really like the visibility of a > > column instead of a letter. > > Go easy on the editor. We need him, he's not privy to this, > and unless Godwin is caught making up entire federal agencies like a > certain New Republic writer, nothing will come of it. It's painful > that Godwin is immune from the consequences of lying, but immune he > is. If this is the best dirty laundry you can find it's pretty pitiful. Let's see. I said, "Don't badger the editor whose decision it is to publish/not publish our reply." I said, "News magazines don't really care if someone lied or not, unless they're a politician, and usually not even then, or unless it was so blatant that there's already a media fuss about it." The majority of what Salon publishes is fiction, whether so labeled or not. "It's a lie! It's a BIIIIIGGGG LIIIEEE!" is singularly unconvincing as a reason to run a story. I don't know whether you understand that or not. "This article smears me!" is another singularly unconvincing reason to run a story. I don't know whether you understand that, or not. "I want to get Mike Godwin because I hate him and you, Scott Rosenberg, must help me!", well, this reason is even worse, if possible, than the other two. Yet these are the reasons you presented to Rosenberg. I can't see how he would fail to regard you as a loon. I'm going to copy this (and your other message re: CWP, those backstabbing bastards) to the CWP survivors as well. Perhaps one of them can make a more coherent response. I think if I tried to respond to that message, I would just get angry, and this response seems to deal with the more important issues raised anyway. Obviously I let myself be a little too truthful with the "pit of despair" sentence, and I pay for it with two pages of venom in return. You've taken your hatred for Mike Godwin, a target which you have difficulty affecting because of his reputation and writing skill, and transferred it to your friends and allies. I've done such things before - typically to my girlfriend, who is generally the nearest target available when something makes me very angry. But I'm ashamed of it. Yelling at her solves nothing and she is not responsible for what made me angry. It's wrong. -- Michael Sims