From declanm@netcom.com Sat Oct 21 11:21:15 1995 Return-Path: Received: from po6.andrew.cmu.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA07489; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:57:36 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po6.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA01804; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:57:14 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:57:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:55:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom15.netcom.com (netcom15.netcom.com [192.100.81.128]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08470 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:55:09 -0400 Received: by netcom15.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA21215; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:25:04 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:25:00 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Sender: D B McCullagh Reply-To: D B McCullagh Subject: Marty/Mike Round #1 To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: [Attached is Marty/Mike email round #1. Marty calls Mike a "fatty." -Declan] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Martin Rimm Oct 18, 95 01:06:10 am -0700 Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: Thought you'd enjoy this To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 01:06:10 -0700 (PDT) Just about everything of mine you've seen gets published somewhere. You knew, for example, that Macworld is publishing "The Marty Method," right? Even "The Rimm Redemption" found a buyer. I'm pleased to hear you think this piece is publishable too. So do I. --Mike P.S. We never seem to talk anymore. Feel free to give me a call sometime. 510-548-3290. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Martin Rimm Oct 18, 95 11:33:53 pm -0400 Return-Path: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 23:33:53 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections Excerpts from mail: 18-Oct-95 Last chance for corrections by Mike Godwin@well.com > I'm getting lots of interest on the most recent piece, Marty. If there I suppose in your book, "lots of interest" is three people, one for Declan, and two if you count yourself, fatty. Marty ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Martin Rimm Oct 18, 95 09:36:18 pm -0700 Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 21:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Cc: declan (Declan McCullagh) Is this the only correction you can think of? It's not as if I don't give you opportunities to correct the record. This note does warm my heart, however. It seems to be the first instance I can think of in which you express genuine feeling. You're neither trying to pump me for information nor trying to get me to do anything else for you. I'm flattered, really. It's so rare that you treat another person as a human being, rather than as a tool to be used. I should mention, by the way, that I'm not finished with you yet. I wish I were, but there's still so much more to tell. Cheers. --Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Message 7/10 From Martin Rimm Oct 19, 95 11:28:26 am -0400 Return-Path: mr6e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:28:26 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections Cc: Martin Rimm Excerpts from mail: 18-Oct-95 Last chance for corrections by Mike Godwin@well.com > I'm getting lots of interest on the most recent piece, Marty. If there > are any factual corrections you'd like to make, you need to let me know in > the next day or two. Seriously, Mike, I don't see how you are being fair here. You toot your horn as a journalist, you say you want to give me a chance to respond, but you already posted your "Rimm/anti-porn links" piece on EFFector online _before_ you gave me a chance to make corrections. What gives here, Mike? Marty ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Martin Rimm Oct 20, 95 10:37:41 pm -0700 Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: Last chance for corrections To: mr6e+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Martin Rimm) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 22:37:41 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin) I did ask you for an interview, Marty, if you'll recall. I saved the e-mail in which you turned me down. But if you have corrections, I'll incorporate them in the permanent electronic version and in the print version, provided you get them to me soonest. --Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From declanm@netcom.com Sat Oct 21 11:21:18 1995 Return-Path: Received: from andrew.cmu.edu by mail4.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA07441; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:57:09 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id NAA09345; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:56:47 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:56:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from netcom15.netcom.com (netcom15.netcom.com [192.100.81.128]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA08479 for ; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 13:55:12 -0400 Received: by netcom15.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom) id KAA21511; Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:29:10 -0700 Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 10:29:09 -0700 (PDT) From: D B McCullagh Sender: D B McCullagh Reply-To: D B McCullagh Subject: Marty/Mike Round #2: "No Contact with Religious Right" To: fight-censorship@andrew.cmu.edu Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: [Attached is Marty/Mike email round #2. Now Marty is backpedalling, claims Mike is wrong about anti-porn connections, and copies this email to his erstwhile advisor Marvin Sirbu and Don Hale, CMU VP PR. In round #1, he didn't feel it was necessary to disavow the connections. Why now, and why CC Hale and Sirbu? -Declan] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:39:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Martin Rimm To: mnemonic@well.com Subject: Your articles Cc: Marvin Sirbu , Martin Rimm , Don Hale Status: RO Dear Mike, This is to notify you that your articles and e-mail about my GLJ piece are riddled with factual errors and are often defamatory. A few examples of your false facts concerning my article -- I can't spend my life correcting your fabrications; these are by no means the only ones -- include: - I never had any contact with anyone who is affiliated with the "Religious Right." - I had no assistance from Bruce Taylor. - Deen Kaplan did not write my legal footnotes. He had no say in the selection of the manuscript for publication. - No member of Congress or staffer ever saw the study until after it was published. John McMickle is the only staffer I ever had any contact with, with the exception of one brief call from a House staffer. - I did not know until 48 hours before press time that our study would be featured in a TIME cover. - I never heard of Len Musil. Labelling my work "fraudulent" and "academic fraud" is libel. Stop circulating lies about me and my work. Your vendetta is as baseless as it is obsessional. This letter is not for your further publication, quotation, or comment. Sincerely, Marty Rimm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199510210800.BAA02980@well.com> Subject: Re: Your articles To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin), brock (Brock N. Meeks), declan (Declan McCullagh) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Rimm" at Oct 19, 95 02:39:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2570 Status: RO Marty, this is *wonderful*. It is also, to use your word, "riddled" with misrepresentations. > Dear Mike, > > This is to notify you that your articles and e-mail about my GLJ piece > are riddled with factual errors and are often defamatory. Nice word, that "riddled." > A few examples > of your false facts concerning my article -- I can't spend my life > correcting your fabrications; these are by no means the only ones -- Well, I will note for the record that I gave you an opportunity to correct any and all factual errors, and that you refused to do so. > include: > - I never had any contact with anyone who is affiliated with the > "Religious Right." Did you ever have contact with anyone from the National Law Center for Children and Families, or the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families? Are you denying contact with Deen Kaplan? > - I had no assistance from Bruce Taylor. When you say you had no "assistance," are you simply saying that Taylor didn't write any part of your article? > - Deen Kaplan did not write my legal footnotes. He had no say in the > selection of the manuscript for publication. Who did write the legal footnotes, Marty? David Banks and other sources say you didn't. > - No member of Congress or staffer ever saw the study until after it > was published. Oh, I never said they did, Marty. > John McMickle is the only staffer I ever had any contact > with, with the exception of one brief call from a House staffer. And when, precisely, did you have contact with McMickle? And who was the House staffer? > - I did not know until 48 hours before press time that our study > would be featured in a TIME cover. So, how do you explain your March note to Seth? And are you now claiming that you didn't know that Time was developing a cover around your study? > - I never heard of Len Musil. Did I say you had heard of Len Musil? > Labelling my work "fraudulent" and "academic fraud" is libel. I'm afraid not, Marty. Truth is a defense at libel law. But I would love it if you sued me. I ache to get you on the stand and under oath. > Stop > circulating lies about me and my work. Which lies are you referring to? > Your vendetta is as baseless as > it is obsessional. Vendetta? Hey, it's not as if I haven't been trying for months to get you to talk to me and tell me the truth. > This letter is not for your further publication, quotation, or comment. Why not? You certainly can't bind me to such an agreement unilaterally. > Sincerely, > > Marty Rimm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Mike Godwin Message-Id: <199510210829.BAA24491@well.com> Subject: Re: Your articles To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 1995 01:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic@well.com, sirbu+@andrew.cmu.edu, mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu, dh0c+@andrew.cmu.edu, declan (Declan McCullagh), brock (Brock N. Meeks) In-Reply-To: from "Martin Rimm" at Oct 19, 95 02:39:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2239 Status: RO To follow up with some more questions: > - I had no assistance from Bruce Taylor. Are you saying that you had no contact whatsoever with Bruce Taylor? Whom do you say you were referring to when you said your article was being refereed by a lawyer who'd argued obscenity cases before the Supreme Court? Who do you say were the four lawyers you said at one time were assisting you with the study? > - Deen Kaplan did not write my legal footnotes. Who are you saying did write them? > He had no say in the > selection of the manuscript for publication. Indeed he didn't. That was done by Meredith Kolsky and three other senior staff members of the GLJ. It will be noted that I did not say in my recent articles that Kaplan played that particular role at the GLJ. > - No member of Congress or staffer ever saw the study until after it > was published. This is a standard move, Marty. You frequently say that certain people never "saw the study" in order to cloud the fact that you or others had told them about it. It will be noted that my article does not claim that particular members of Congress or staffers "saw the study." > John McMickle is the only staffer I ever had any contact > with, with the exception of one brief call from a House staffer. What are the dates you say you were in contact with McMickle? Who are you saying was the House staffer? How many times were you in contact with McMickle? How many times were you in contact with Deen Kaplan? > - I did not know until 48 hours before press time that our study > would be featured in a TIME cover. Are you now claiming not to know that Time was planning to use your study for a cover? Are you now claiming not to have known this in March? Are you now denying that you made a study of Philip Elmer-DeWitt's writings in order to position your paper as something that would interest him? > - I never heard of Len Musil. Has anyone ever claimed you know Len Musil? > Labelling my work "fraudulent" and "academic fraud" is libel. Actually, it is not. These terms are both factually and legally accurate. > Stop > circulating lies about me and my work. Please identify, with quotations, the "lies" you think I have told. --Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From declan@vorlon.mit.edu Tue Oct 24 22:38:17 1995 Received: from po7.andrew.cmu.edu (PO7.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.107]) by eff.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA09723; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:38:15 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po7.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA20128; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:37:55 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po3.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from eff.org (eff.org [140.174.2.70]) by po3.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA08600 for ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:35:43 -0400 Received: (from declan@localhost) by eff.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id WAA09610; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:35:43 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:35:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh Reply-To: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu To: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Rimm Mail and Ethics of Distribution Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: RO X-Status: I've added Pete Madsen from CMU's Center from Applied Ethics to fight-censorship, and I'd like to invite him to respond to some of Marty's points. As I understand it, an ethical analysis would consider Marty's rights as sender and Mike's responsibilities as recipient. Pete, what do you think? As a side note, I'm moving my Rimm/CMU files to this account in preparation for putting them online. Of course, I don't speak for the EFF. -Declan [replies set to f-c] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:56:28 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin I specifically asked you not to redistribute my note to you, but you did so publicly. While what you did may not be illegal (I don't know), I am curious to hear how and why you think releasing my private e-mail is entirely ethical. Couldn't I accuse you of being unethical for doing so? ~~ Marty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:00:15 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic@well.com Marty, remember when I told you long ago that I'm more of a chess player than a poker player? That means I prefer to make all my moves out in the open. From a chessplayer's perspective, your motives were transparent: 1) If I'd kept your response secret, you could have said that you'd sent me corrections, but add that I did not acknowledge them. You'd have played up this argument with Sirbu and Hale, whom you cc'd with that message. You'd also have turned me into a collaborator with you on the issue of keeping some of your words secret. 2) If I'd revealed what you'd said, allowing public review of both your comments and my responses, you'd have the advantage that I'd circulate your (deceptive) words, plus the extra added benefit of being able to claim that I'd violated some (hazy and unarticulated) rule of ethics. It was a nice gambit, all told, but you can surely see why I opted for (2) -- your reliance on others to keep your secrets is too basic a tactic in your arsenal, and I could not allow myself to play along with it. The best choice, as always, was simply to let you speak and then analyze what you'd said. --Mike > I specifically asked you not to redistribute my note to you, but you did > so publicly. While what you did may not be illegal (I don't know), I am > curious to hear how and why you think releasing my private e-mail is > entirely ethical. Couldn't I accuse you of being unethical for doing so? > > ~~ > > Marty > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:18:08 -0400 (EDT) To: Mike Godwin Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin So what would you do if you were me? I have 120 pages of e-mail from my professors that demonstrate their close involvement. Would you publicly release this e-mail if you were me? Could they complain releasing their e-mail was not ethical? Marty ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-Path: mnemonic Subject: Re: FYI, exchanges between Rimm and Godwin To: mr6e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Martin Rimm) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Cc: mnemonic (Mike Godwin) Marty, I think the thing you should do is tell the whole truth. This continues to be my advice. > So what would you do if you were me? I have 120 pages of e-mail from my > professors that demonstrate their close involvement. Would you publicly > release this e-mail if you were me? Could they complain releasing their > e-mail was not ethical? > > Marty > ### From declan@vorlon.mit.edu Tue Oct 24 22:58:38 1995 Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu (PO2.ANDREW.CMU.EDU [128.2.10.102]) by eff.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id WAA10147; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:58:37 -0700 Received: (from postman@localhost) by po2.andrew.cmu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id BAA17983; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:58:39 -0400 Received: via switchmail for fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:58:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from po2.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:57:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcs32.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:56:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pcs32.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mms.4.60.Jan.26.1995.18.43.47.sun4c.411.EzMail.PC.2.0.CUILIB.3.45.SNAP.NOT.LINKED.pcs32.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c.411 via MS.5.6.pcs32.andrew.cmu.edu.sun4c_411; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 01:56:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Loomis To: Fight Censorship Mailing List Subject: Re: Rimm Mail and Ethics of Distribution In-Reply-To: References: Status: RO X-Status: Excerpts from declan: 24-Oct-95 Rimm Mail and Ethics of Dis.. by Declan McCullagh@eff.org > I've added Pete Madsen from CMU's Center from Applied Ethics to > fight-censorship, and I'd like to invite him to respond to some of Marty's > points. Marty's invocation of ethics is as valid as Marty's cyberporn study. Mike gave no assurance that he would keep Marty's messages confidential. It is far too much to expect an opponent to keep information confidential that is useful to them without some assurance of confidentiality. Mike's action would be bad etiquitte if Mike and Marty were involved in a friendly relationship, but clearly that is not the case either. > As I understand it, an ethical analysis would consider Marty's > rights as sender and Mike's responsibilities as recipient. Pete, what do > you think? What about Marty's responsibility as a sender and Mike's rights as a recipient? While applied ethics are all and good, we should also remember the more theoretical point that neither "rights" nor "responsibility" are particularly well-defined--that both words have their dangers. For instance, William Connolly write this about the problem with responsibility. "We may come to think of responsibility as an indispensible social practice that typically contains elements of injustice, as a necessary activity inherently susceptible to inflation by those who impose utopian dreams of unity, salvation, freedom, or agency onto life." (William E. Connolly, "The Augustinian Imperative: A Reflection on the Politics of Morality", page 101) Rights are subject to the same problem. If this theoretical point were kept in mind perhaps we would be subject to less self-righteous whining. Of course, Marty's invocation of this issue is a political move by someone who has lost a debate. I doubt that any morality or etiquitte will stop such behavior, but perhaps we can learn to more quickly discern the hollowness of such appeals. Michael Loomis