|Scott: “It especially irks me how 'the class' slumps down in their chairs and goes silent in the face of hurricane Perigo.”|
I had composed a reply, but at the last minute stayed my hand. I hope I did so out of prudence, a desire not to inflame the situation or meddle in matters not my concern, rather than fear of the consequences.
After all, I rationalised, Perigo’s having another fit, it’s pointless remonstrating with him while he’s in that state of mind. But it is to our shame that – Barbara excepted -- we were silent in the face of some nasty bullying.
Lindsay’s rationale for his behaviour is that 1) He feels strongly about the war in Iraq; and 2) He “owns” SOLO.
The first argument is specious --- many people have strong views about Iraq. Lindsay has taken advantage of this to indulge in a particularly nasty form of argument from intimidation: agree with me, or be a fucking arsehole!
The second argument is also specious, unless one believes that ownership confers rights without responsibilities. In any case, what does ownership in this case actually entail? Presumably, it includes the domain name, design features and the introductory content (although probably not the “location” in cyberspace.) But it’s not clear whether ownership to the extensive submitted content, whether articles or individual posts. It would be more true to say that ownership of the site confers “fair use” -- as per the disclaimer – of this material.
Furthermore, ownership is not an absolute. There exist controls external to SOLO, such as prohibitions on child pornography and other illegal activities. So the ownership aspect is neither straightforward nor a green light for any type of behaviour.