Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #214 of 842: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Wed Oct 18 '95 (21:40) 21 lines Hey, Marty did respond to my solicitation for corrections, after all. Here's what he said: 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 Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #215 of 842: Avant Garde A Clue (mnemonic) Wed Oct 18 '95 (21:43) 32 lines This was my response: 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 Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #225 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Fri Oct 20 '95 (22:47) 39 lines 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 > 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 > Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #229 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:38) 39 lines 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 Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #230 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:42) 100 lines 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 Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #231 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:43) 826 lines Topic 1108 [media]: Martin Rimm and the Cyberporn Scare, Continued #232 of 842: Mike Godwin (mnemonic) Sat Oct 21 '95 (01:44) 83 lines 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 Martin Rimm Oct 24, 95 03:56:28 pm -0400 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 From Martin Rimm Oct 24, 95 05:18:08 pm -0400 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 >