Expanding the Public Sphere through Computer ... - ResearchGate

CHAPTER 1. COMPUTERS, CONVERSATION AND DEMOCRACY 10
1.1 talk.abortion – August 9, 1994
Ten days ago, a radical anti-abortion protester shot and killed a doctor and
his bodyguard outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida where abortions were performed.
You find the murder extremely troubling and have been unhappy with the
level of discussion in the conventional media. The media treat the murderer as
a “crazy” or “delusional” individual, without systematically examining and explaining
the belief system underlying his action, or subjecting that belief system
to what you would consider rigorous critique. You have heard about conversations
taking place about politics and philosophy among people connected to the
Internet, and decide to investigate. A friend helps you figure out that you are
looking for Usenet “newsgroups” (see Section 3.3 on page 51 for a description
of Usenet), and you find out that the system at your University carries a group
called talk.abortion. You start up the “news” software, and with some help from
your friend, are able to display a listing of the articles or postings available in
the talk.abortion group on that day (see A.1 on page 107). Your friend points out
that the list of topics includes all postings made to the group during the past seven
days, the default set by your computing center. Had you been so inclined, a tally
would have revealed that the newsgroup, as of that moment, consisted of nearly
1,000 different articles on over 300 different topics by 175 different authors.
Undaunted, you proceed, deciding to read some of the 95 articles on the subject
Pro-life Gunman kills two in FL (Table A.3 on page 122 contains the first 50 articles).
You read the first few articles matching the subject requested. The third
article is written by someone with an email address of desteinberg@nmsuedu,
identified at the bottom of the article as David Steinberg. In the article, Steinberg
takes issue with the comments from a previous writer (Gary Frazier) suggesting
that those who are pro-life seek to control human knowledge about sex, and questions
the value of discussants demonizing those with whom they disagree. Other
articles focus on the need to differentiate among people in the “pro-life movement,”
arguing that not all people who are pro-life supported the actions of Paul
Hill; present a list of conditions specified in the bible in which people are justified
in killing each other; and plead with participants to adopt a more civil tone in
their discussions. Reading the next 20 articles convinces you, in a way you don’t
quite understand, that you’ve stumbled into a place fundamentally different from
other places you’ve been before.
Further reading of the articles available that day in talk.abortion reveals a seemingly
large number of different authors (see A.2 on page 117), writing articles on