Ben: jon, i was wondering if you could tell me the reasons why
[you think] i shouldn't print the seth thing, cause i know i shouldn't and
want an intellegint opinion
Ben: and you seemed against it
Jon: first of all, it seems the opinion of everyone in the
school that the media bullshit isnt helping anyone, just fucking things
up. second, although [school administrator] didnt say
it, you could tell he was trying to keep people from printing it... [this is
a reference to a school assembly about the issue.]
Jon: i dont think it is legal to print stuff from a possible
trial. the school has already show that you can get in toruble for
stuff outside of school, so you couldl get in trouble for this. also, its
just dragging out an issue, and making it a bigger deal. and it isnt
very progressive
Ben: hmm... the [school administrator] issue doesn't concern
me because i'm all ready gonna be the first to go, [meaning that if there
were a hypothetical crack down on dissidents at my school this would
be only one of many incidents I’d be held accountable for] but you really
think it's just more needless talk about it, and not getting to the truth rather
than just hype?
Jon: yeah, i think that the issue is over, and [what just] pisses
people off isnt going to change anything positivly anyway
Ben: hmmm.... the legal aspect is interesting. but i don't think
it's true because take the ken starr thing. it was illegal when he
leaked documents, but the papers that printed weren't in violation.
so my unnamed source didn't say, i didn't ask, and i don't have to
say who he is cause of consitution. and there's no way the school
could nail me on any basis [this isn’t intended as a challenge to the
school, I just don’t feel that I’m in violation of anything by printing this.]
Ben: that's what bothers me, is if it's over am i just dragging
things on, but if it's still gonna go to trial, and media hype is still
going on ([Philadelphia] inquirer editroials today for instance)
[this is a reference to the Jan. 12 letters page] it's just gonna keep
going. so essentially the issue is does printing the actual
conversation stop all the hype by cutting to the actual truth, or just
add to the hype? and you think it just adds to the hype?
Jon: with starr there was a vote in congress over
whether papers should be released
Jon: and the could get you for publishing stuff about the
school, or something equally bullshit
Jon: i think it hypes it, just by having it out front, as a
major issue, not just an administration thing, which is what it really
is. its not really our business, and by putting that out, it makes it
seem like it is
Ben: no, not the whole thing [not the final starr report],
i mean earlier he got in trouble for leaking when it was still being done.
in general though i'm not liable for what my source gets and don't have
to say. legal isn't what worries me. and they could get me for anything.
but i don't mention the name anyways.... if they wanna get me they can
anyway [the school doesn’t require a legal basis to take action against
me for what I print]
Jon: yeah, you are liable for anything you publish. but i
agree, legally isnt the major thing, i just think it wont benifit anyone,
it we just keep the issue alive
Ben: hmm... this is a conundrum. suppouse the issue is alive
anyways cause of case- which I'm not saying it is. but if it were still
alive would this help or add to the hype?
Jon: i think it would just get people worked up. i mean,
everyone knows the jist of what he said. people dont really seem
to care about it anymore. by publishing the dialouge, your j[us]t
going to get everyone worked up, and i actually think that if you
want to help [espelled student] (which i dont think is a good idea, -- ---
---- - -------, -------- ---- in my experience) publishing the dialouge wouldnt
help him, but just hurt him
Ben: people don't know the jist really... i've heard some very
wrong things, and the [tv] news is misleading
Jon: but what [school administrator] said seems to have clarified
Jon: but then again, iv’e only seen like a 1/5 of the conversation
Ben: i don't wnat to help [expelled student], ---- -- -------, i think it probly
would hurt him cause it shows he wasn't joking [in my opinion, but he has said
in a public statement that he was most certainly joking and that you just can’t tell
really from just the transcript. so decide for yourself] which people don't seem to
understand... i'm not trying to help anybody
Ben: like the mumia thing [previous issue].... i want to show what i can
as truth and cut the hype.... i don't know what to do
Jon:so what is the goal in publishing it? it isnt
progressive, or to help anyone, its not like the truth is really going
to effect an issue benificial, which is dying (at least in our school)
Ben: first off, i'm not concerned just in our school (fuck, i
have a contact [someone I’ve communicated with and sent zines to]
in new zealand)... i'm not trying to be progressive... my zine isn't political
propoganda... i have differentt aims... this aim would be to cut through the
hype with info i have and most people don't. it might not effect issue i don't
care if it does but i'll have added to an enviroment of truth
Ben: does this change your view now that you know what
i'm trying to do?
Jon: but what i think is that it doesnt seem like an
important enough to bring back an issue which just fuck
with the school
Ben: hmmm... actually, i think it helps the school.
see your point though. i'll have to think about it
Ben: i suppouse my vanity is involved cause the kid [who gave
me the transcript]was like "your the only one who would actually be
brave enough to print it"... but then again i'm worried about not doing it just
for fear of school. [disciplinary action] but seriously, i do understand your
points, i don't know what to do
Jon: i know
Jon: also, i find it odd that the "media" didnt quote the
transcript directly. i mean, you'd think they could get there hands
on a copy if you could ( no offense, but theyre big corporations) so
maybe they werent allowed to quote it?
Ben: the news did, but chose misleading quotes
Jon: but they only had a few, all taken from that
radio-show. you think they would quote extensively, if they could
Ben: yes. but that would show that they don't have a story
really, because it shows he wasn't [seriously] threatening violence
but is just an ------- who has major issues. i wanna make that clear
[this is just my personal opinion, there is no evidence to back it up or
anything, it’s just my personal interpertation]
Ben: though there is irony in the story to prove theres no
story
Jon: i guess you have a point.
Jon: it just seems kind of counter-productive to publish
now
Ben: that's true. though the case may flare it up again
Jon: i think it will once the trial, if there is one, gets
underway
Ben: yes. why don't i print this conversation as an editors not[e]
to explain the issues?
Jon: i dont follow
Ben: print the transcript with our conversation first as editors
not[e] instead of my note... it would explain the issues involved in
deciding to print it and there would be supreme irony in it
Jon: that would be clever
Even after this conversation I was still undecided as to what I should do. I was leaning
towards prinitng the above conversation as well as the conversation which led to the
expulsion. What I finally decided was that it was not worth it to waste seven pages on
something which was fairly ridiculous to begin with, I had ambivilent feelings about, and
which had become passe due to the time it takes to put out a zine. On the other hand, I
would feel rather dishonest if I refused to make the information available to all. What I
finally decided was that while I would not print th conversation, I would make the
conversation (edited for privacy and coherency of course) available at
https://www.angelfire.com/pa/antisocialzine/expulsion.html.
