RETURN TO TOP OF INGRID SHAFER'S USAO FACULTY WEBSITE
Copyright © Ingrid Shafer 1997
This paper was originally presented at the Southwest/Texas Regional Popular Culture conference in Stillwater, OK, 10 February, 1995. Since then the Internet has expanded exponentially, and the opportunities for engaging in online warfare have increased proportionately. I am now myself listowner of five lists (all religion-oriented) and regularly monitor several others.
Occasional flaming is a fact of cyber-life, but it is clearly caused by a tiny minority of "true believers" with an agenda. Furthermore, the same individual can wreak havoc in several forums simultaneously. Consequently, a few fanatics can give the illusion of polarization and tempt us to forget that the vast majority of cyber citizens are courteous and reasonable. The medium clearly offers the occasional fanatic a captive audience and a way to multiply his or her presence. I recently joined a newly formed list for European Catholics, and in the very first week the name of Davida--the "heroine" of this paper--came up; she is still busy "defending the faith" on assorted lists.
Cyber-wars could be averted if list members were to follow one simple rule--not to engage the flame-thrower. The most powerful weapon against fanatics is silence; they feed on opposition, are not swayed by reason, and grow stronger with each response, no matter how objectively well-founded, because it offers them yet another opportunity for proselytizing. For the welfare of the whole community it is also important for people not to sign off when one of those agitators starts posting offensive or violent messages. The delete key in one's own mailbox is another effective defense. It takes emotional maturity to take the abuse mutely and/or refuse even to read certain messages, but it works. By allowing the terrorist to drive us away we are conceding him or her a limited victory, and that would be unfortunate. Now for the original paper:
Everyone who has some acquaintance with the emergent cyber culture of INTERNET, NEWSGROUPS, LISTS, GOPHER, MUDS, FTP, IRC, PPP, WWW, and so forth has by now experienced or at least heard of the ubiquitous custom of "flaming" one's enemies: to verbally flay those with whom one disagrees viciously and without mercy until they are reduced to fragments of virtual charred flesh and smoldering brain tissue attached to hundreds or thousands of monitor screens. Flame throwers and e-mail bombers are not simply online terrorists or escapees from some psych ward, they are frequently ordinary people, including academics, who allow themselves to be drawn into explosive emotional confrontations with strangers and resort to taunting and ad-hominem attacks.
In the January 20, 1995 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education (p. 56A) Jesse Lemisch sharply castigated H-Net (a consortium of 57 moderated H-Net lists for non-adversarial, scholarly discussion and sharing of resources) because of the H-Net rule that participants practice civil discourse. Lemisch said that he considered the "ridicule of ridiculous ideas . . . a legitimate debating strategy," adding that banning flaming was tantamount to banning dissent. In a response to Lemisch posted on Internet, the Executive Director of H-Net Richard Jensen pointed out that "H-Net believes in the entire First Amendment" from "Freedom of the Press" to "the right of peaceable assembly" and that the latter cannot be guaranteed without minimum standards of civility. He accused Lemisch of demanding "unrestricted access to the assembly of scholars," of wanting, in effect "everyone and anyone to have the unfettered right to barge to the front of the hall, seize the microphone, and be totally unhindered in what they say." He pointed out that "There are many venues like that right now on the Internet, but H-Net will never be one of them," adding that in the entire history of H-Net with nineteen thousand subscribers only three individuals had to be banned for refusing to abide by the rules even after they had been warned.
I first became fascinated with the role of religious hatred on the Internet in fall of 1994 when I posted a request for help on the DIFTX-L List (a forum for members of different Christian denominations) concerning two men with AIDS I had met as part of my work with Hospice. My appeal resulted in a flurry of vicious anti-gay messages by a couple of vociferous subscribers. Ironically, neither of the people I was trying to help was gay. One was a married grandfather who had received tainted blood, and the other was a former intravenous drug user whose wife had already died of the disease. In the wake of the insults hurled toward homosexuals --insults that soon expanded out to include Jews, liberals, Catholics, secular humanists and other undesirables--several previously active individuals left the list. I went nomail and have been inactive ever since.
About the same time I started to post regularly on the Vatican2 List, a forum for liberal Catholics who want to infuse the Church with the spirit of democracy. Among our goals are a Constitution for the Church, ordination for married men and women, reduction of papal power, and ecumenical dialogue with fellow Christians and members of other world religions. Vatican2 is identified as official list for the ARCC, the Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church.
In the October 28 issue of the National Catholic Reporter, Tom Fox published an editorial on "Catholics on the Net" in which he mentioned several lists including Vatican2. Within ten days after the article appeared, three new subscribers began to post indignant messages, attacking the goals of the group and accusing individuals of heresy and grave spiritual error. One of those subscribers, Davida (not her real name), started to post obsessively on the theme of "eunuchs for the kingdom of God." A priest replied, "As a celibate myself, I must say I find the usage of 'eunuch' as an image for our vocation distasteful, to say the least. When I took religious vows I did not castrate myself and I did not check my sexuality at the door. I'm still human, thank God. (Wed, 16 Nov 1994 21:19:40 EST) Another priest, Dirk Van Damme, Professor of Ancient Languages at the Theological Faculty of Fribourg, Switzerland became so frustrated at her rantings that he wrote:
[Y]ou have the dubious gift to mistake what is going on in your mind when reading scripture for the Word of God itself. You think you are the messenger of "the" truth when pro claiming your "truth". You twist the words of our Lord's messengers (the Gospels) in order to make them fit with your "truth". . . . In a further message to other netters, you (a) accused them of blasphemy (in a condescending would be "prayer" to "your" Holy Spirit) and (b) falsified the Gospels. pretending that the "eunuch" episode is in the three others as well. Look up any synopsis to see that this is not the case.
He then suggests she remember that "'truth' is something one has to seek, not something that one possesses and can impose upon others." (Thu, 24 Nov 1994 01:24:51 MET).
Several members of the list tried to reason with the woman. The listowner wrote to her privately several times, asking her to stop attacking others verbally. In response, she tore into a troubled young woman who had written a letter filled with pain because as a lesbian she did not feel welcome at the communion table: "I can not present myself, wholly and completely, at this altar without judgement and condemnation. So, how am I to receive Christ at this altar?"
Davida responded coldly "By such disbelief in the sacredness of the WORDS spoken BY THE PRIEST himself during consecration, and by such "SCRUPLES" that reigns in people's mind and heart on such instances of DISBELIEF, the "desolating abomination" has already started...." Then she offered a "prayer":
Lord, have mercy. Don't let us desecrate You in the Most Blessed Sacrament by our disbelief. Help us maintain Your Sacredness such tha[t] by the power of Your OWN spoken words spoken by Your priests, we may believe and we may be sanctified and the gifts offered to Your Father may indeed become Your Flesh and Blood. . . . St. Michael, in the Name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, cast the devil back to hell so as to prevent the desolating abomination in desecrating and destroying the Most Blessed Sacrament in our Mass." (Mon, 5 Dec 1994 06:19:23 -0600)
The day after she posted this message the list owner removed the woman from the list and made it impossible for her to sign back on. He made the decision to "filter" Davida after consulting with three list members (including myself) in response to a continuous stream of private complaints concerning Davida's posts and a reduction of active list membership from 269 (15 November) to 231 (4 December), despite daily new subscriptions. The decision was joint and unanimous, made after serious deliberation that extended over many days. Davida appealed to the listowner to reinstate her. On December 9, 1994 he responded, reminding her that "Vatican2 is an invitational list for those who basically agree with the positions of ARCC." Others are welcome as long as they don't interfere with the ongoing work. He pointed out that she had "caused a great deal of pain and sorrow among others on the list," and had driven a number off the list, adding that he would consider himself irresponsible if he "did not now act to protect the rights of the others on Vatican2 who are here to pursue its purpose within the basic positions of ARCC." Finally he assured her that "If after several months you feel you would like to rejoin the list, and would feel comfortable in one of the three categories I described, then you need only write me at that time and I will welcome you back, as I am certain the rest of the list will too."
It seemed that finally the list could settle down to business as usual. However, now we had to face the reactions to the decision to filter Davida. Davida's most powerful ally turned out to be a gay medievalist who objects to any kind of censorship for any reason:
Now I am concerned about this "filtering". As a gay person I find myself "filtered" out of all sorts of conversations and discussions by people who think I am too disgusting to list to, or too vulgar, or bad for the "atmosphere". I too find many of Davida's posts stupid, ignorant, and aggressive - that is why I usually delete them before reading them. . . . [B]ut for a list that posits a more open Church to "filter" . . . a dissenting voice is simply not acceptable. What are we goin to have in this Catholic Charter ALL CATHOLICS HAVE FREE SPEECH, BUT SOME CATHOLICS HAVE MORE FREE SPEECH THAN OTHERS? (Thu, 8 Dec 1994 14:56:22 -0500)
In response to this legitimate concern I say that a list is not a public access usenet group; a listserv list is started by and remains under the supervision of an individual or a group of individuals. The "owner" of a list has the right to set policies, a right to determine guidelines for posting, and a responsibility to enforce those rules.
After all, the very principle of free speech is grounded in the Enlightenment ideals of the ultimate victory of truth and rationality over error and unreason in the marketplace of competing ideas (grounded in faith in the perfectibility of human beings). I believe that J.S. Mill tacitly assumed an operating principle analogous to Adam Smith's "benevolent hand of God" that would ensure that a free market economy would not turn into permanent oppression for the losers or subvert the very process by handing over control to the enemies of free enquiry. In other words, liberty of expression should not be allowed to become a tool for oppression.
More importantly, Vatican2 is not the Catholic Church. Neither is it a free debating society or the global community. Vatican2 is an Internet list organized for the specific purpose of giving like- minded people the opportunity to discuss their concerns in a con- genial, supportive, non-threatening environment, that is, at the very least, without having to worry about being blasted by others.
Filtering her from this group does not seriously restrict her activities. Davida is free to start her own list or join other lists. She does not have to be on this list. There are thousands of lists.
In my research for this paper I discovered that while the woman was causing havoc on our list she had posted a long letter at the con- servative Free Catholic List in which she admitted proudly that she had joined Vatican2 to "set a trap." He letter was entitled a "warning for the people of God." She referred to us as "associations or groups of dissenters, schismatics, FARC's (fallen-away RC's) . . . inside and outside cyperspace," adding that:
these are those which have been instigated by the devil in his conquest to "divide and conquer" the Church so he can "come after the obedient children of God", making dissenters or Judases amongst and out of them. Well, with serious concern, I must inform everyone that "E-MAIL LISTS" exist under a "Catholic" name (much like this one) but are actually "electronic" counterparts of "associations/groups" that subscribe to a specific "AGENDA" in "undermining" the authority, religiousness and sacredness of the Church. There, "civility" is mistaken as "peace", just as a atheism strives for "peace" to maintain security for worldly existence and other concerns. There, they "seek" to delude people with personal, secular, worldly, humanitarian agendas, just as "humanitarianism" is needed by atheists in order to survive on earth. . . . As I said, these are close to the "desolating abomination" because they seek to "overpower" and destroy the SACRED authority ordained by God and the structure of our Holy Mother Church, the consistent, Mystical Body of Christ. . . . Hence, to the people of God, be aware of Satan's snares and others' persecution upon the Church. Be steadfast in your stand, God's obedience to God's statutes, convictions and faithfulness. Take care in contemplation and application of the divine Truths in the teachings of our Church. Respect God's ordinances upon His ministers, His shepherds and the authority of the Church together with Christ's vicar, the Pope. You will know the "desolating abomination" as it's purpose is to destroy these very structure of the Church. (Fri, 2 Dec 1994 15:39:52 -0600)
Davida has been filtered but not forgotten on Vatican2. While she has not posted since December 6, 1994, in January 1995 her name was still mentioned in 22 out of a hundred log files I keep on my hard drive. Obviously, for the Vatican2 cyberspace community she has become a mythic figure to represent a certain kind of individual or church. People will refer to "l'affair Davida" with something almost resembling nostalgia.
It is possible to make a strong case that Davida's appearance on Vatican2, and that of several individuals of similar convictions were very probably not coincidental. In the November issue of This Rock, a conservative Catholic publication, Karl Keating urged his readers to sign up with the e-mail lists recommended by Tom Fox in the National Catholic Reporter article "to the liberal readership of NCR" for "for a different reason. By signing up you can counter the self-satisfaction of the heterodox for whom these lists are intended." Keating continued that "This is a fine way to engage in long-distance apologetics. You need have no worry about receiving unwelcomed visitors at your door or strange missives in the regular mail." He describes Vatican2 as "an extreme left-wing group." After defining several additional lists in a similar manner, he concluded with the following encouragement: "If you engage in this cyberspace apostolate, please drop us a line and let us know how you fare. Inquiring minds want to know."
I see little difference between fascist hate groups and right wing religious propagandists. Personally, I find it as difficult to admit that members of hate groups have a right to spread their intellectual venom with impunity as I would to allow someone to put poison into the drinking water of a community. However, that may well be the price we pay for democracy. Hence I wouldn't totally muzzle them; I'd simply have them move their rhetoric into a gathering of the likeminded.
And so, let me close with a bit of flaming gasoline that dropped into my e-mailbox over night, after I had posted a questionnaire concerning the issues addressed in this paper (the message is reproduced exactly as it appeared, except for the writer's name):
While I do not own a list I have tried to post to several lists my veiws about the hell bound homosexual and other types of reprobates that are doomed for the lake of fire. At first people try to respond with what limited scripture that they have but I quickly blow them out of the water with sound doctrine. I am curious at how quickly the group owner tries to censor my posts and then how the "loving and tolerant " try to shut me up in a judge not lest ye be judged frame of mind. Any way I hope that this answers some of your questions and feel free to ask if any more come to mind. [Writer's name] street preacher soon to appear on a infomation super highway near you ... (Thu, 9 Feb 1995 07:54:56 -0600 (CST))
You are visitor #
RETURN TO TOP OF INGRID SHAFER'S USAO FACULTY WEBSITE
Copyright © Ingrid Shafer 1997