“All the problems of the world could be settled easily if men were only
willing to think. The trouble is that men very often resort to all sorts of
devices in order not to think, because thinking is such hard work.”
— Thomas J. Watson
“Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticized? It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinions calculated to embarrass the government?”
— Nikolai Lenin
“To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit the reading of
certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or
— Claude-Adrien Helvetius
“But words are things, and a small drop of ink,
Falling like dew, upon a thought, produces
That which, makes thousands, perhaps millions,think.”
— Lord Byron
Below is text from the page of Tony Pittarese regarding The Student Voice.
Following this text is a Response from Leibniz of The Student Voice:
What about StudentV?
(Site last updated: October 21, 1996)
Several times in the last month I have been asked by people both in person and through email [sic], “What about this StudentV? What do you know about him/them? What do you think about what he is doing?” Although no one has asked about this, some have probably noticed that the origin of much of the work at this web site occurred during the same timeframe [sic] when StudentV began his “work.” Some have also noticed that StudentV’s WWW page links to this site. Can’t anything be done about that? Well, in answer to many of the above questions, let me respond:
WHO IS THIS STUDENTV OF WHICH YOU SPEAK?
StudentV claims to be a former student at PCC who publishes an “underground newsletter.” The author(s) choose to hind [sic] behind a cloak of anonymity. The newletter [sic] is published in a pseudo-intellectual style and dispenses more errant than correct factual information.
HAVE YOU SEEN STUDENTV’S WORK?
Yes, I am acquainted with the work of StudentV. Within a short time of his “popping up” I was informed of his work by 3 friends.
DO YOU KNOW WHO STUDENTV IS?
No, I don’t know who StudentV is. I have a very strong suspicion due to some email [sic] I received from some people about the time StudentV’s work began. It is nothing more than a suspicion however.
AM I IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH STUDENTV?
No, I am not in any way connected with StudentV. (Apart from the fact that we both seem be [sic] have a mutual connection with PCC.) This web page and his work are totally unconnected.
DOES STUDENTV GET NAMES FROM THIS WEB PAGE?
I suspect that he does get some email [sic] addresses from this web page. If you do receive email [sic] from StudentV after having you [sic] name added to this list, please contact me so that I can pursue that in accordance with the policy of this page. It is a copyright violation for anyone to use this page for the purpose of mailing a newsletter or other related solicitation. If he does send you unsolicited email, ask him to stop. If he refuses, send a copy of your second request to “email@example.com”. Sending unsolicited email [sic] is bad netiquette [sic] and generally considered grounds for removal of
IS STUDENTV A CURRENT PCC STUDENT?
It stands to reason that if I don’t know who it is, I can’t really answer that question. Personally, I believe that he probably is a recent graduate. (Specifically a person who graduated within the past two years.) I believe he does however have people “helping” him that are current students.
BUT STUDENTV SAID FOR CERTAIN HE WAS AN ALUMNUS!
Well, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so! StudentV’s credibility is lacking. In fact, early publications of his “work” indicated that he was a current PCC student. Now, he claims to be an alumnus. Although there is a circumstance where both of these statements could be true, I am doubtful of that. StudentV plays games with the truth on this issue. This is not unusual – StudentV plays with the truth on many, many issues.
ISN’T STUDENTV’S CAUSE “JUST”?
Let’s set aside for a moment the legitimacy or illegitimacy of his claims. What is the Biblical pattern given for seeking correction in situations like StudentV is crusading? I’m aware of no Biblical directive admonishing anonymous rabble-rousing as an acceptable remedy. For all of his pretence [sic] of godliness, StudentV’s cloak of anonymity is his biggest betraying characteristic. A true man of honor would gladly sign his name to his beliefs (a la Martin Luther). (He would also follow the Biblical pattern for
correction of a brother, which this person obviously has not.) One should legitimately question the motives of an anonymous individual publishing a newsletter replete with half-truths and outright falsities.
WHAT SHOULD OUR RESPONSE TO STUDENTV BE?
That’s an issue for each of you to decide. I do know that he has received many emails [sic] in praise of PCC and its work. Apparently those get lost in his inbox. Personally, I’ve asked StudentV to not send me anymore of his junkmail. A speaker without an audience soon gives up the desire to speak. StudentV has proven that he is capable of twisting words with the best of them. His lies cause me to doubt anything he says. I’d recommend that you take the time you might spend writing to him and pray for him instead.
CAN YOU GET RID OF HIS WWW PAGE? CAN YOU REMOVE HIS LINK TO THIS PAGE FROM IT?
Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is no. Part of the concept of free speech on the Internet is that unless someone says something that falls outside the realm of protected speech (libel, etc.), nothing can be done The content of his page is totally his to control, just as the content of this page is totally mine.
BUT WHAT HE SAYS MAKES ME MAD!
That’s what he desires. If you find yourself getting mad, just stop and refuse to – don’t give him that satisfaction. It should be of no surprise to anyone that PCC has “enemies.” Anyone who appeals to the lowest common denominator will certainly find ample fodder for publication.
ARE THE THINGS THAT STUDENTV SAYS TRUE?
I suppose some of it may be, but the last “edition” of his “newsletter” was full of outright lies about policies and misstatements about past events. StudentV apparently does not believe in fact-checking of any sort and simply assumes that information sent to him is correct. As with all things, consider the source. An anonymous individual with the track record of “factual reporting” as demonstrated by StudentV should be accorded the respect due to anyone in that position.
P.S. Keep in mind that this web page is a private work of its author and is in no way officially connected with Pensacola Christian College and its related ministries. The author of this page is expressing his own personal views which may or may not happen to coincide with the above named entity.
Copyright 1996 by Tony Pittarese. This document may not be quoted or copied without the express consent of Tony Pittarese. Failure to comply with this directive is a violation of Federal copyright law. Quotation requests for the purpose of review or fair comment should be directed to Tony Pittarese.
Dear Mr. Pittarese:
We checked out your page a few days ago in response to some information we received from one of our readers. We were told that there was a “PCC page” with some information about The Student Voice. We sent a message to this person asking what the page was because they didn’t say anything about where it was or whose it was. We received no response for a few days, so an announcement went into the next issue of The Student Voice requesting information about the page. The announcement indicated that we had not seen
the page and therefore did not know what it contained. A day or two after the issue went out, we received a message from the same person who had originally informed us of this “PCC page.” The writer asked why we had lied about not seeing the page, indicating it was yours. At the time, none of us here at The Voice recalled having seen the page, only sending an e-mail to you requesting a list of alumni.
This past week we finally got some time to check out the page, and once we pulled it up, I, Leibniz, remembered having looked at it briefly back in the middle of the summer sometime. We then immediately sent a message clarifying the mistake to the person who gave us the original message, and we are informing you of this mistake publicly.
We are really trying to figure out why this is such a big deal, whether we saw the page once or not. But a friend of yours obviously thinks it is a big deal, and there is a possibility that you do as well. Therefore, in our attempt to maintain the highest level of accuracy and honesty, we readily admit the mistake.
For those of you who have no idea what this is about, simply put, we told one person in a private e-mail that we had never seen Tony’s page, but when we were able to take a look at it this past week, I, Leibniz, realized that I had briefly seen it once back in the middle of the summer. I had not
remembered seeing it; it was an honest mistake. It is irrelevant to either Mr. Pittarese’s page or our newsletter.
THE CONTENT OF THE PAGE.
In all of this page’s ceremonious degradation of what was on our original page, you have not pointed out one single thing that is wrong with what we have said, nor have you pointed out one single error of fact. (The error we were just referring to was made in a private transmission to one individual. It was never made public via a page or an issue of The Voice, neither was it pointed out to us by you.) The space and attention you have given us with this page has raised a substantial interest in what we have had
to say, and it has thus increased our readership. However, to state our general objection to the content, we feel it is an extreme mischaracterization and nothing but character assassination. The legal ramifications will be addressed at the end of this Response.
We would, though, ask that if you are going to criticize us, please be more specific. You level a good many charges at us on this page, yet you fail to give us one single example of the things of which you complain. We do not at all mind criticism. We do, on the other hand, mind character assassination.
Now, about the substance of your page. . . .
You write, “Although no one has asked about this, some have probably noticed that the origin of much of the work at this web site occurred during the same timeframe [sic] when StudentV began his ‘work.'”
Please do not flatter yourself, Mr. Pittarese. We learned of your page through our own readers and on a completely independent basis. We created our original page and the newsletter with no help from you or your page, just for the record. If you recall, at the time our page began, you did not have a list of alumni available on the page itself; in fact, the list we requested in early August via e-mail was rejected by you.
You write, “The author(s) choose to hind [sic] behind a cloak of anonymity. The newletter [sic] is published in a pseudo-intellectual style and dispenses more errant than correct factual information.”
First, for the record let it be noted that this is the FIRST assertion or implication on your page saying that we are liars. This will be addressed separately in the Legal Ramifications section.
Second, we do not “hind” [sic] behind anything. Our anonymity is for a very specific purpose, and we will address this later when your statements bring the subject of anonymity up again.
Third, you characterize our “style” as “pseudo-intellectual.” By characterizing our style as “pseudo-intellectual,” you apparently are saying that our STYLE is not intellectual. The style is “fake” or “false” intellectualism. Now, as far as the style goes, a style cannot be “pseudo” anything. It either is or it is not. Whether the SUBSTANCE is intellectual is another matter, for this is essentially what you are getting at. Whether or not something is “intellectual” in its content is purely a matter of
opinion. In your opinion, what we write is not intellectual. That is fine. We welcome differences of opinion. We do appreciate you reading our material, though, in order to come to this conclusion. However, there are plenty of other readers who DO consider our material intellectual in content.
Who is right, Mr. Pittarese? You, or numerous others who disagree with you? If it is you, perhaps you would like to explain to these individuals, and us, why we are all wrong in thinking The Voice is an intellectual publication.
As for the “more errant than correct factual information,” would you please let us know what it is that is incorrect? These broad charges are difficult to address and change if we do not know what they are. As far as we know, we have stated nothing that is factually incorrect. We readily admit that procedures and policies change, and therefore, they may have changed since we were there or since we were last told they existed. But this is precisely one of the purposes of our newsletter – to see some much
needed change. We would love to hear that various policies we have criticized have been changed.
A common trait of those of you who disagree with us, though, is to claim that we make factually incorrect statements, yet you never state which statements those might be. As we do with most, if not all people who make this charge, we request that out of fairness to us you publicly state what the factual inconsistencies are. It is one thing to say that we are factually incorrect; it is quite another thing to specifically point out what those errors are.
You write, “No, I don’t know who StudentV is. I have a very strong suspicion due to some email [sic] I received from some people about the time StudentV’s work began. It is nothing more than a suspicion however.”
We recognize that you very well may have a suspicion as to who the editors of The Voice are, but we would like to assure you that you do not know who we are.
You write, “I suspect that he does get some email [sic] addresses from this web page. . . . It is a copyright violation for anyone to use this page for the purpose of mailing a newsletter or other related solicitation.”
First, copyright as it relates to this page. Copying your page into this issue of The Voice IS NOT a violation of federal copyright law since the reason it has been copied is so that The Voice may make a fair criticism. We realize that at the bottom of your page you state that if anyone would like to make a “fair comment” they must check with you first. This is not true under the federal copyright laws. In order to be completely fair (because we are often said to “twist” people’s words), we have included the entire relevant portion of your page out of fairness to you, Mr. Pittarese.
In copyright law there is what is known as the “fair use doctrine.” This doctrine is derived from Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 107. It states:
[Section] 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [defining exclusive
rights], the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by
that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the
use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include –
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work. . . .
We will not insult your intelligence by explaining what this statute means, but if this is not clear enough, there are cases which explicitly support our position. We would be more than happy to supply you with them if you so desired. Since we are copying this page in order to make a fair criticism, we are violating no federal copyright law.
Second, copyright as it relates to the list of names and e-mail addresses for “solicitation” purposes. First, up until two days ago, we did not use your page one time to acquire names, primarily because the only time we saw the page was in the summer when it contained no list. Since our attention, however, has been drawn to your page due to your comments about us, we have decided to use the list to send this letter and a complimentary issue of The Voice to every member on your list. We will let them decide if they want to be on our permanent list or not themselves.
Using a list of names for solicitation IS NOT a violation of federal copyright law. Again, there are several cases which explicitly make it clear that the use of name and address lists in copyrighted materials IS NOT protected by federal copyright laws. This is primarily because name lists, while not in their compilation form, are publicly available and not original creations of the author of the copyrighted work. The purpose of copyright law is to prevent the theft of someone’s original work at the originator’s
expense. First, even if we were “stealing” either of these two components, as far as we can tell, this would result in no monetary loss to you. In fact, if anything it would increase the number of visitors to your page, hardly something the copyright laws were created to prevent. Second, the list of names is public information, not your own creative work (as previously mentioned). Therefore, your statement of copyright law is factually incorrect.
So, if you are going to criticize us for factually incorrect information which you have not specifically pointed out, please correct your own factually incorrect information which we HAVE specifically pointed out.
You write, “Sending unsolicited email [sic] is bad netiquette [sic] and generally considered grounds for removal of service.”
This, too, is not entirely correct. Much of the e-mail people send back and forth is “unsolicited.” If unsolicited e-mail was in fact “bad netiquette [sic]” and “generally considered grounds for removal,” then no one who found your list would be able to e-mail anyone else on that list because it would, in fact, be “unsolicited.”
We think what you meant is that it is bad etiquette and generally considered grounds for removal if you continue to sent people e-mail AFTER they have explicitly requested that the mail not be sent. This is, and has been, a policy of The Voice since the very beginning. We find it interesting that you are so concerned about people not reading The Voice, yet even after you requested that we send you no more “junkmail,” you still continue to read our newsletter! For the benefit of everyone reading this, and to refresh your memory, your request for us to discontinue sending you information was made way before we ever sent out our first issue. Yet you refer to issues and information that is contained in them, and we assume that since you are concerned about us not putting anything in our newsletter that we haven’t verified ourselves, you must be doing the same thing as well. If you would like to receive our newsletter yourself instead of through friends, please let us know.
You write, “StudentV’s credibility is lacking.”
This is the SECOND time which you have either explicitly or implicitly called us liars. We will deal with this in the Legal Ramifications section below.
You write, “StudentV plays games with the truth on this issue. This is not unusual – StudentV plays with the truth on many, many issues.”
This is the THIRD time which you have either explicitly or implicitly called us liars. We will deal with this in the Legal Ramifications section below.
You write, “I’m aware of no Biblical directive admonishing anonymous rabble-rousing as an acceptable remedy.”
We are likewise aware of no Biblical directive admonishing the treatment of adults like little children and placing a Biblical stamp of approval on it. But what is it about our ideas that are to be considered “anonymous rabble-rousing”? Is any position that is in disagreement with yours “anonymous rabble-rousing”? We think it is simply an indication of how intellectually immature and blind you must be to consider legitimat criticism as “anonymous rabble-rousing.” No one – not you, not us – has a corner on the truth; and the worst possible way to discover truth is to censor opposing opinions and ideas. As a teacher, how can you honestly sa you are for education when you are likewise apparently against allowing any other views but your own to be heard? No, legitimate ideas and criticisms are not “anonymous rabble-rousing;” character assassination, on the other hand, is.
You write, “For all of his pretence [sic] of godliness, StudentV’s cloak of anonymity is his biggest betraying characteristic. A true man of honor would gladly sign his name to his beliefs (a la Martin Luther).”
The reason we are anonymous is because we do not want these views to be seen as nothing more than the views of a couple of “lone crusaders,” because they just simply are not. The views we express are those held by hundreds of current students and thousands of alumni. The views we express are held by many of your own students no doubt. If you want to know who we are, look around you the next time you are on campus. Look at some old yearbooks. Then you will know who The Student Voice is.
And as for your assertion that if a man was a man of honor he would gladly place his name to his views, perhaps you might want to read some early American history, say, the years surrounding the infancy of this country. We hope you would not refer to men like John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson (to name a few) who published various views and opinions under anonymous pseudonyms as dishonorable. For instance, much of the Federalist Papers – some of the most important articles to America’s system of government – were published anonymously. These are the men who risked their lives, their fortunes and their families so that you and I could have the right to say what we want to say. Now, we certainly don’t claim to be anywhere close to being on par with these great men, nor do we believe that our cause is quite as important, but we feel that if anonymity was ok for them, it is likewise ok for us.
You write, “(He would also follow the Biblical pattern for correction of a brother, which this person obviously has not.)”
You are actually right on this point – we have NOT followed the Biblical pattern for correction of a brother. Why? Two reasons. First, because we do not have a problem with a “brother.” There are no particular people wehave problems with; rather, it is a philosophy and a way of thinking that we would like to see changed. Our problem is with a “system,” not a “brother.” Second, you might want to study this New Testament passage of Scripture. Paul is speaking to a specific church, and he is giving instructions for the procedure CHURCHES are to follow. So, if we were to follow your advice, which church would we take the matter to if the “brother” were unwilling to reconcile? My church? lupos’s church? Your church? The Campus Church? No, we have not followed this pattern because it is absolutely not applicable to our situation.
Third, if you are going to be consistent, why don’t you insist that PCC follow this “Biblical pattern for correction of a brother?” How does the demerit system fit into what you perceive to be the correct pattern of reconciliation? When was the last time this procedure was conducted at PCC? To even suggest that we are somehow in error for not following this pattern while you work at PCC is so outrageously hypocritical of you that it is no doubt so obvious to everyone who is reading this right now, that we will not even insult their intelligence by explaining it.
You write, “One should legitimately question the motives of an anonymous individual publishing a newsletter replete with half-truths and outright falsities.”
This is the FOURTH assertion that we are liars, and it will be dealt with in the Legal Ramifications section below. As for the motives (and we apologize to those of you who have heard this over and over again), our motives are completely irrelevant to the issues we discuss. Our motive is to make PCC a better place by making public what is normally a secret dialogue among students, and by seeing the administration begin treating its students with the respect they deserve.
But assuming our motives were as evil as could be, the issues remain the same. They don’t somehow ebb and flow on the sea of legitimacy by force of our motives. This is really quite ridiculous to constantly pound our motives, but we realize that this is likely the only thing you feel you can adequately address. Fine. Go ahead and criticize our motives all you want, and encourage others to do the same. It really makes no difference to us. We remind you, however, that the issues are still pending, and they remain unchanged.
You write, “I do know that he has received many emails [sic] in praise of PCC and its work. Apparently those get lost in his inbox.”
Yes, we have received many e-mails in praise of PCC and its work, but no, they have not been “lost in [our] inbox.” Virtually every single message we have received in opposition to our views have been publicly displayed. In fact, a much higher percentage of opposing messages we receive are posted publicly than the percentage of those messages in support of our views. Besides, how do you know what our volume of messages is? The fact of the matter is that yes, we receive “many” messages in support of PCC’s philosophy. However, we receive vastly more messages in support of our position than we do from any other. That is a fact.
You write, “His lies cause me to doubt anything he says.”
This is the FIFTH assertion you make indicating that we are liars. This
will be dealt with in the Legal Ramifications section below.
You write, “CAN YOU GET RID OF HIS WWW PAGE? CAN YOU REMOVE HIS LINK TO
THIS PAGE FROM IT? Unfortunately, the answer to both questions is no.”
As far as removing the link on our page to your page, all you have to do is ask. Just for the record, neither you, nor anyone else has ever asked that your link be removed from our page. In fact, several people have suggested that we put it on. That is how we originally found out about your page. Far from the assertion that we were mooching off your page to get names is the fact that we were actually trying to help you out. We have no vendetta against you, we don’t even know you. Someone told us about your page so we put the link there in order for you to have more visitors. And this is the thanks we get. . . .
As for removing our page, are we to assume from this that you wish our page could be removed simply because you disagree with its content? And if this is the case, are we to also assume that you wish EVERY page that contains information to your disliking removed? We will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is not what you want, but this still leaves the question open as to why you want our page removed. If, on the other hand, you should not be getting the benefit of the doubt, we are relieved that you cannot remove every page to your disliking, because this would certainly result in a dry and boring Internet.
You write, “BUT WHAT HE SAYS MAKES ME MAD! That’s what he desires.”
Again, how you have become privy to our “desires” is beyond us. We don’t desire to make anyone “mad.” We, again, are trying to provide a forum for discussion of the issues. It is strange to us that those in opposition to our views are often using descriptions such as “mad,” “hatred,” “bitterness” and “anger.” We have none of these characteristics. We find what you have written offensive, yes, but we are not “mad” about it. We understand that people will disagree with our views, but we do not see any
reason to get “mad.” Perhaps you and those who bring up these descriptions ought to look in the mirror and see if that is where the “hate” and “anger” resides. We harbor none of these sentiments.
You write, “It should be of no surprise to anyone that PCC has “enemies.” Anyone who appeals to the lowest common denominator will certainly find ample fodder for publication.”
Not to belabor the point, but we are not “enemies.” We want to see a better, more reasonable PCC. How does this and differences of opinion constitute one being an “enemy”? So, we are the “lowest common denominator”? Is that what you are saying? Perhaps the reason that we, or whoever is the “lowest common
denominator” can find ample fodder for publication is because THERE IS ample fodder for publication. Maybe that is the whole point of The Voice. Maybe if there wasn’t “ample fodder” there wouldn’t be a “StudentV.” You would be happy, we would be happy, and most importantly, the students would be happy.
We want to see the “fodder” become a little less “ample.”
You write, “the last “edition” of his “newsletter” was full of outright lies about policies and misstatements about past events.”
This is the SIXTH assertion you have made calling us liars. Please refer to the Legal Ramifications section below.
Mr. Pittarese, you have made a statement to many people that StudentV is a liar without having ever pointed to one single instance of where this is true. I have pointed this out to you. In the State of Florida this is called DEFAMATION, and one who has been defamed has recourse to file suit against the one who has defamed him. At this point in time, I do not intend to file suit because I think after reading this letter, you will realize your error. But I want you to know that I have every right and justification to do so, and the statute of limitations allows the cause to run for one year.
Now, what I think ought to be done is for you to (1) explain to us what it is that we are so egregiously in error about, (2) remove the portions of the page that refer to us as liars, AND (3) send an apology to every one of the people on your list. We do not mind disagreement or opposition. We do mind being portrayed as liars. We do mind being defamed in front of the world.
What about the fact that these statements are your opinion, which is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution? The Constitution does protect opinion, but when you use factual instances (i.e., that we lie in our newsletter) to back up your opinion, the Constitutional protection is lost.
What about the fact that we are anonymous? We are not anonymous to everyone. There are quite a few people who know our identities, and when you refer to StudentV as a liar, many people know who you are referring to. Bottom line: this shouldn’t be matter for the Florida judicial system. Don’t make it one.
THE STUDENT VOICE