Re: hey asshole (Fwd from private e-mail)

Hello everyzoo,

[Note: In the interests of all zoos, this message is being posted to alt.sex.bestiality, as well as Bcc:'ed to the two non-zoos involved, though their names have been removed to protect their anonymity, and certain details of the incident have been changed or omitted. The two complainants know this thread as "Your Page" and "asshole," respectively.]

At any rate, I received a disturbing flame today (1/25/97), from an individual asking me to remove a link to a page with animal photos (which I have since done). It is disturbing in that it is the first of the mere handful of flames I have received in two years of being online that is actually intended as spiteful and/or threatening. All previous flamers were merely sarcastic or juvenile; this writer appears genuinely upset and quite determined to cause me some grief. Read on: the writers' comments are preceded with >'s, and mine follow after each line....

(Note: For your reference, the entire flame appears below:)

Date: 25 Jan 1997
From: [snipped]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Your Page

You are one sick fool. Do you realise that I accidently stumbled across your pathetic page and guess what! I am friends with the people who own the [snip] page. What a coincidence. I feel that they have grounds to take legal action over your defamitory remarks and positioning if their page. I have informed to owners who no doubt will be in touch with you.

I suggest you remove your animal links or face the full brunt of the law!! Oh buy the way you are breaking the law and will be reported to the authorities. I suggest you make the FBI welcome when they arrive.

I wil be proactive in removing your type of scum from the internet.

In a message entitled: "Re: Your Page" a lady wrote:

>You are one sick fool.

The psychiatric community is in almost unanimous agreement that people who are sexually attracted to animals are not "sick," any more than are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. The words "sick" and "perverted" are falling out of favor among psychologists; they prefer terms like "alternate," which has no strong negative connotation. Societal alternates are often emotionally insecure, due to their conflicting feelings about their orientations, and referring to them as sick indicates only that the speaker wishes to elevate him or herself above them, not that he or she wishes to better their lives.

And as for "fool," I have been called many things in my life, but "fool" is not one of them. I won't go into details about my RL activities, but I will say that my jobs and hobbies require a great deal of intellectual capacity, and a fool would fare poorly at them.

>Do you realise that I accidently stumbled across your pathetic page

"Stumbled" is such a nebulous term. You didn't say how you came across it (most likely through the use of a search engine, while looking for links to something innocuous), but there are several free utilities for blocking access to adult materials on the Internet. It's a free planet, last time I checked, and in lieu of government regulations, web page authors have created a self-rating system. My pages have META tags for this very purpose. Here are some URLs to check if you want to protect yourself or your kids from adult-oriented websites:

OTOH, since you're an adult, you're really not in much of a position to complain about having found me. Sooner or later, if you surf the web, you'll find something you don't like, and you should be old enough to handle other people's alternate lifestyles. Besides, if you "stumble across" it, you can stumble away from it. Calling the authorities and the FBI is not a mature response, IMHO.

Oh, and I was saddened by your use of the word "pathetic"; you were undoubtedly judging my site by a cursory glance at its topics, not by its appearance. My site has been visited over 70,000 times in less than a year, and you're the first to call it pathetic. I can't begin to guess how much time I spent on those pages, but I'm sure I've put in several hundred hours expanding and fine-tuning them into a worthwhile resource for others like me. I'm a little offended by your quick dismissal of my site: not to toot my own horn, but I'm quite proud of the work I did, and I think others are, too. Take another look with an open mind and see what you think.

>I am friends with the people who own [a non-zoo site on my animal links page].

And a nice site it is. I'm sorry you were offended by its inclusion on my web site; I will remove the link. You may be interested to know that in nearly a year of operation, you are the first person to complain about one of my links. And to the best of my knowledge, you are only the second in Usenet history to ask that a link be removed from a zoo page. (FYI: NetVet was first, asking to be de-listed from the UZP.)

>I feel that they have grounds to take legal action over your defamitory
>remarks and positioning if their page.

I'm sure you'd like to take comfort in that belief, but a quick review of the text accompanying the link reveals nothing the law would find inappropriate. To defame, according to _Webster's Tenth_, is "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander." Nothing on _any_ of my pages could be considered libel or slander. I make no accusations about anyone. I mention the existence of something that is already publicly available, and I make no statements to suggest anything untoward on the part of the site's owners or the people involved.

Hypothetical Situation: If a professional portrait photographer creates a web site of her work, and if among the dozens or hundreds of photos there happen to be some tasteful nudes, it is not at all surprising to expect the web site to appear in the bookmarks file of people across the world, including gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. The fact that the photos were taken in innocence and good taste in no way diminishes their appeal, and no offense should be taken if not all of the people are admiring them with the same mindset she had.

All I am saying is that the photos at that site, taken in innocence, have a wider audience than the photographer intended. That's true of every work of art ever made, and should not be considered a shameful thing. I found those photos by accident (perhaps in the same way you discovered my page), enjoyed them (more than the photographer would probably like), and informed others of my kind as to their existence. No law prohibits this.

>I have informed [the site's] owners who no doubt will be in touch with you.

Indeed he has. His one-line e-mail message was entitled simply "asshole" and read as follows:

"hey asshole, remove my link from your "Animals on the WWW" page."

Had he left out the first two words, I would have been pleased to do as he asked, and would have sent back a polite reply apologizing for any offense. Instead, he wrote hurriedly and in anger, choosing to insult a stranger. I have not been called that particular word, or anything like it, since high school, and it is perhaps for this reason I have long associated such name-calling with juvenile behavior. I thought the web site in question was well-designed, and the photos in question were tasteful, and nothing at my site implied or stated otherwise.

No offense was ever intended, but it was obviously felt. For that, I am sorry. It is never my intention to offend or insult anyone. This world is big enough for all viewpoints; too bad some worlds aren't big enough for mine. {sigh}

>I suggest you remove your animal links or face the full brunt of the law!!

Well, as I stated earlier, with the defeat of the CDA, no US law currently exists prohibiting the resources available at my site. In fact, the law currently permits stuff I wouldn't _want_ at my site.

And as far as "full brunt" goes, I think the authorities would take one look at your complaint, laugh a little, and go back to their paperwork. With all the crime in today's society, the law enforcement community lacks the resources and the incentive to pursue a man whose worst offense is letting people know where they can find suggestive animal photos.

>Oh buy the way you are breaking the law and will be reported to the
>authorities. I suggest you make the FBI welcome when they arrive.

The FBI has no jurisdiction in these matters, and as stated above, I have done nothing illegal. It's in our best interests as "alternates" to be very familiar with the laws: believe me, I've checked. If I start trading bestiality videos, _then_ I can expect a visit from the Feds, because that's interstate commerce in pornography. I suggest you check the laws carefully before you make any attempts at legal intervention: you'll be embarrassing yourself far more than you will me. Also, pursuing me in that fashion could actually get _you_ in legal hot water, whether I press charges or not (don't worry, I value my anonymity and won't be making a scene about any of this).

In order for me to be really in trouble, the FBI would have to issue a court order against my e-mail provider or my web server, to obtain my RL address. To do this, they must first obtain a court order, and to do that, they must first show cause. A PG-rated animal photo is not cause, nor is anything else at my site. I worked very hard to keep the content of my web pages within the confines of the law.

>I wil be proactive in removing your type of scum from the internet.

Oh dear, first I was pathetic, now I'm scum. I seem to be going to heck in a handbasket. {sigh} You actually sent me reaching for my dictionary on this one, though: proactive means "acting in anticipation of future problems, needs, or changes." If anyone should be proactive, it should be me. I anticipate future problems from the narrowminded and fearful, I anticipate a need to educate society to be more tolerant of differing lifestyles and beliefs, and I anticipate changes in the way governments try to control the lives of their citizens.

I am very much aroused by the sight of an animal's genitals, as are many other people I know. If you are offended by that, I am sorry, but I cannot change who I am, and I have come to accept myself as a zoophile. I take comfort in the knowledge that there are others like me, and I am glad there are others I can talk to when I have problems or questions.

If you go around trying to remove the zoo pages from the Internet, people are going to look at _you_ funny, especially when they see the site that spurred you to this action. I keep a porn-free site, I'm polite, I'm fair, I'm open-minded, and I have a sense of humor. Not only that, my spelling and grammar are pretty dang good. :) I'm a nice person both in RL and in VR, and while I will remove the link as you asked, I am saddened by your quick and hurtful reply. Either of you could have simply said, "Please remove the link to this site," and I would have done so gladly: I would not have spent the next four hours composing this reply. But instead you decided I was some kind of dangerous pervert, and you saw an opportunity to belittle me and "punish" me for some perceived atrocity. I am proud to say I have no enemies, and there is no one in the world (even the aforementioned high-school bullies) who bears me ill will. I'd hate for you to be the first.

I'm a nice guy, really, and I'm no threat to anyone. My only difference from the average person is that animals turn me on. Is that so horribly bad? Let's talk about it -- seriously. We can do it in private. We both love animals, and there's no reason for us to exchange hateful e-mail. We can learn from each other. I'm extending the olive branch. Will you take it?