Letters to the Editor

[strider@xxxxxxxxxxx]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

The change in format of burmanet-l to a moderated list has prompted a
number of responses.  Below is a sample of the feedback we have received.
At the end of this posting, I respond to the suggestions and criticisms
contained in these messages.

Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 07:20:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: changes to BurmaNet

Dear Burmanet editor,
	I am not criticizing you but your policy.  How will you specify
the personal attacks and how will you censor or monitor the e-mails
specifically?  You should specify the detail definition of personal
attacks and post it before applying censorship. That will make sense if
you apply these specifications to all people including democracy groups
messages against Ne Win, Khin Nyunt, and SPDC members, SPDC or Ko Okkar's
messages against Daw Aung Sun Suu Kyi, and our messages about Ko Naing
Aung or NCGUB or FTUB.  You should reveal your censorship regulation's
specification and you should stick to all groups and all.  But, without
describing the specification, it will never be fair and it is the thing
SPDC does under the vague censorship regulation.  It would be grateful if
you specify the definition of personal attacks and details of regulation
and the method in detail of how will you fairly monitor or censor.  In
addition, it should really and carefully apply equally to all.  I mean to
stick it.  From now on, I will read all message carefully and see how your
policy works.  Remind you that you should give the detail specifications.  
In addition, please let all know who decide to impose this policy and it
is very important to take responsibility on the policy making decision.
Unless it, the decision maker can be Ko Naing Aung alone or FTUB or NCGUB
alone.  
	I am so careful of not sending personal attacks
but I point only on facts and situation and policy.  Once you wrote me an
e-mail which I am still keeping, warning me of not to send personal
attacks.  I requested you for specification and explanation of why you
think personal attacks and which you think personal attacks, but I never
ever received any answer.  
	I would love to know the specification and the method of how will
you imply and who will do it.  SPDC has very vague censorship regulation
and using it, SPDC censors everything it doesn't like no matter whether or
not fair.  I don't want Burmanet to impose censorship with very vague and
unclear status.   When specified, it should apply to all equally.  

Yours sincerely,
Kyaw Zay Ya


Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:29:58 +0900
To: burmanet-l@xxxxxxxxxxx, strider@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: changes to BurmaNet

Dear Friends,

Isn't it a simple matter not to read irritating postings?  I have no problem
deleting those I find tiresome (and there certainly are some who try to
compensate for their poor vocabularies by using a lot of filthy language --
picked up, perhaps, at a very unskilled job at a very rough port or
construction site?)  

As for outlawing "personal attacks," we wonder very much what our editor
means here.  Haven't there have been some examples where what some people
might call "personal attacks" might have been justified?  

In one case, actually, a "personal attack" might have saved a project worth
saving.  I'm referring to the case of SAYTAMAN, the Burmese/English
publication for health workers on the border, which was destroyed by the
unprofessional, egotistical, outrageous behavior of the foreign "Project
Coordinator," who got away with firing her competent, committed Burmese
staff and ending the "distance learning magazine" for no reason at all.  Had
the truth been told promptly, perhaps a valuable project might have been
saved.

We always have the option of receiving only Burmanet news if we can't stand
the volume or the heat of the open net.  For me, I'd rather have a truly
open forum, even if it means having to use my delete key when I see that
certain senders are still frothing at the mouth.  As for "personal attacks,"
can't we readers be the judge?

With metta,
Visakha Kawasaki

Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 09:47:56 -0700
Subject: Re: changes to BurmaNet

Friends:
I have seen pretty good many professional news groups on the internet that
employ full time editors. They usually vote prior to posting a message for
public view and the outcome of the vote is usually sent back  to the
originator
if the message cannot be published  I do not believe this type of action is
against the freedom of expression rather it can assure quality of the
postings.  Remember that every newspaper in the democratic society has a board
of editors who make sure their publications stay within their policy built on
the freedom of press. I can see the requirement of a moderation here when the
amount of messages does not really reflect the quality. Only the military
media
in Burma has space and time for constant personal attacks.
Regards,
Kyaw Tint
ps: <soc.culture.burma> still has no interruption at all if you like.


Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 23:53:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: changes to BurmaNet

Dear Ko Kyaw Tint,
	Yes, every newspaper has the board of editors and again they have
very clear and detail regulations of editing or viewing the messages or
news.   They do follow their regulations and use those.  Moreover, the
board of editors are made known in order to take responsibility.  
	The difference between the Burmanet and newspapers is that
Burmanet supposingly open to open forums.  I mean open forums.  Burmanet
is not only for news, I suppose.  Some use it for their political
advertisements, some use it for information sharing, some use it for
propaganda, and some use it for open forum.  What I suggest is when
imposing censorship, it should make the censor regulation very clear to
the public so that everybody can rely and trust on fair censorship.
Without those detail regulation, how will someone know he is censored
fairly and accordingly?  And the censorship regulation which imposes
should be applied to all equally.  Didn't we write bad about Ne Win, Khin
Nyunt, and SPDC?  Can't those be called as personal attacks?  Asiaweek
article about Daw Aung Suu Kyi's affair?  Isn't it personal attack?  It
was also on the Burmanet.  Ko Okkar sent many e-mails accusing NLD and Daw
Aung Suu Kyi.  Aren't they personal attacks?  Why can they be noted as
information when someone critical wrote about improper affair of a leader
of an organization on the border deem as personal attack?  
	Without clear and specific regulation exposed about censorship,
who will be practically able to guarantee the fairness?  Do you think about
it?   Also, the board of censorship should be made public so that everyone
knows who censors.  Not having those standard, who can say it is a
democratic practice?  How?  
	We, the people from Burma haven't got opportunity for open forums.
We are not getting used to it and those are not familiar with us.  Some
doesn't know how to participate.  Some uses very bad or rude language (I
mean words).  But, at least they learn something about open forum and
they are learning.  You can't hope to get very good open forum in a day or
in a month.  No Burmese discussion will be like any summit within a day.
They need to learn.  The Burmanet editor or the board of editor can
mediate by telling someone when he use improper language (remind you to
provide the explanation of how it is improper).  Then it will be very good
and effective to let Burmese exercise open forum and discuss on issues and
finding out solutions.   It will help them empower themselves and help them
practise on discussion and critical thinking.  
	With the kind of vague censorship and sensitiveness for pointing
out its sides, how can we bring up Burma into democratic practices?  Who
will guarantee the fairness for the people's expression?

Yours sincerely,
Kyaw Zay Ya

****************************************************************

Burmanet Editor:

Under NCGUB name and funded by OSI, Burmanet always comes up a backward
idea of censorship whenever the activists debate about inabilities,
ineffectiveness, lack of principles and corruption in our struggle for
peace, liberty and justice. It is a shameful policy of Burmanet, it is a
SLORC/SPDC like policy of Burmanet.

Mr. Strider, you are a paid employee as Burmanet Editor by NCGUB and OSI.
So, we try to understand your position; you have to follow the non-sense
guidelines and instructions imposed by those self-centered, ineffective
NCGUB personnel and OSI Burma Project. At home, we have a bad,
ineffective, corrupt-mined and principle-less regime. At oversea, we still
have those so-called bad, ineffective, corrupt-mined and principle-less
leading activists. Shame on those people! So bad! Too bad!
(We feel very, very sad for our motherland, fellow countrypeople and
unlawfully detained political prisoners).

Revolution without Freedom of Expression is self-destructive.
Our experiences in the jungle, Thailand and oversea prove that the lack of
the freedom of expression causes ineffectiveness and sky-rocked
corruption in our movement. We all need to look forward, not backward.

Freedom of expression with censorship, sounds funny.
Burmanet needs to maintain as a free forum without censorship. Our
Revolution needs the freedom of expression in order to maintain the check
and balance. Burmanet needs to be enlightened itself. Never try again to
make political bull-shit toward the grassroots activists. Never say again
censorship threat.

I repeat, never say again censorship. Otherwise, bye bye Burmanet.

regards,

Than Soe
IUB-Indiana

****************************************************************

Dear Subscribers,

I agree with Kyaw Zay Ya's point that BurmaNet can and should (and has)
provided a forum for subscribers to engage in discussions about the
situation in Burma and about the resistance movement.  The guidelines --
"no personal attacks and no profane language" are general parameters for
the content of postings. These guidelines are defined broadly purposefully
so as to give BurmaNet some flexibility.  It is impossible to spell out
every angle one could take to make a "personal attack," and an attempt to
do so would allow for postings that follow the "letter" of the guidelines
but are against the "spirit" of keeping such attacks off of the list.  For
example, in choosing the sample of messages above, I did not include some
that stated "burmanet sucks" and made unsubstantiated accusations about the
motivation behind the decision to change the format.  However, I don't make
the word "sucks" absolutely out of bounds.  I can imagine there are some
situations where it would be appropriate.  

Visakha Kawasaki suggests that some personal attacks on BurmaNet could be
justified because it is often particular people who are responsible for a
project's or an organization's problems.  Public scrutiny of leaders both
within the military and in the opposition is inherent to their roles as
leaders, and we will not keep a message off of the list just because it is
critical.  Where is the line between a "personal attack" and a justified
criticism?  Rumors about one's personal life (whether based in truth or
completely fabricated) will be kept off the list unless a clear point is
made in the message that it is relevant to the person's public role.  This
is not always an easy line to draw, and we will have to make judgement
calls on such messages.  The general thrust, here, is to encourage healthy
debate and constructive criticism while avoiding rumor-mongering and
character assassination, motivated by interpersonal conflicts.

As for the logistics of how messages will be monitored:  I will review the
messages and choose whether to approve them or not, then send the approved
messages out to the list.  A review board (consisting of males and females,
Burmese and non-Burmese) will consider questionable messages and through
consensus make a decision about whether or not to allow distribution.  For
those that are rejected, I will send a message explaining why the message
is not acceptable, and I will be willing to consider a revised version of
the message.

Finally, regarding BurmaNet's affiliation:  BurmaNet is a project of the
Open Society Institute (OSI) and has no other organizational affiliation,
despite Than Soe's suggestion that we are affiliated with NCGUB.  BurmaNet
functions with the support of staff of the Burma Information Group and the
ABSDF Research Office, who scan articles for posting on BurmaNet.  We also
work closely with a number of other NGO's and opposition groups who supply
material for posting on BurmaNet.  For those of you who have lived or
visited the Burmese borders, you understand the need for discretion
regarding the identity of NGO workers and opposition groups here.  BurmaNet
is in the same position, and for that reason must maintain anonymity.

As a reminder, the soc.culture.burma newsgroup is an open forum available
to everyone on-line.  In addition, those subscribers still dissatisfied
with this decision are, of course, free to set up their own list.

Sincerely,
BurmaNet Editor