Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!gregbo
From: gregbo@houxm.UUCP (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: "FREE"dom of the net is costing over $600,000 this year
Message-ID: <983@houxm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 21:43:15 EST
Article-I.D.: houxm.983
Posted: Mon Nov 12 21:43:15 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 19:07:29 EST
References: <30@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 111

> From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)

>>> To sum up:  If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you,
>>> and this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your
>>> postings, your civil rights have been violated.

>> Tim is making VERY broad assumptions here. Even assuming he is right and
>> the administration of a machine doesn't have the right to decide who is
>> allowed to use the resources of that machine,

> No one has claimed that "the administration of a machine doesn't have the
> right to decide who is allowed to use the resources of that machine".
> Obviously they do have that right, but it is not absolute.  They also have
> the right to decide who will or will not be hired by the company; but if the
> decision is made on political or religious grounds, that is a violation of
> the would-be employee's civil rights.  Singling out an employee for
> silencing on political or religious grounds is no less obviously an act of
> discrimination.

The administration of a machine often does not grant the right for anyone to
use the machine.  In a company, school, or whatever, people are permitted to
use the machine because they have a need to work on the machine.  Above and
beyond that (for example, guest logins), it is up to the discretion of the
company whether their are enough resources to support non-business activity
(which USENET is).  A company may elect to leave that judgment to the admin-
istration, but the administration is not under its own authority to make
those kinds of decisions.
 
>> anyone who attempts to push
>> this issue would be much more likely to lose network priviledges for ALL
>> users than to get their own privliedges back.

> So?  Does the fact that administrators are likely to be jerks about the
> thing settle what is right and wrong about the issue?

Again, it is not the administrators who are at fault (do any of you other ad-
ministrators feel that you are jerks because you are just following orders
from your superiors?).  I can attest to the fact that forcing an issue can
cause a privilege to be lost for all -- for example, when's the last time
you saw a posting on net.jokes from an houx* machine?  The administration
is not at fault because of this, it is merely because they are carrying out
the orders of their supervisors. 

>> I'd rather not have a body of precedent sitting on top of
>> usenet forcing us to do things, it is much nicer to work things out
>> privately, cooperate publicly, and keep the lawyers as far away as
>> possible.

> It would be nice, wouldn't it?  Dream on.  I know for a fact that few
> administrators are likely to be "cooperative" if they feel someone is saying
> something that ought not to be said.  I hope you're not one of these people
> with a fanatical hatred of lawyers -- the law is unpleasant, but without it
> there is no protection of your rights.

I, myself, would not want a USENET government.  However, things are starting
not to look too good, and more moderation may be necessary or major sites may
start to drop out, causing USENET to die.  Again, you really can't blame the
administrators, because they are just following orders.

>> Tim might be right-- under some circumstances it might be
>> considered a violation to your right of free speech to have your posting
>> priviledges revoked, but I wouldn't count on it. You probably have as much
>> right to scream at a technical magazine turning down your article for
>> publishing or a newspaper turning down your letter to the editor. Both can
>> also be considered restrictions of the first amendment on a very
>> philosophical and intellectual level-- in reality nobody would take you
>> very seriously.

> The magazine analogy is very weak.  Any magazine inherently turns down
> things it doesn't want to publish, due to its limited resources.  It is not
> a public forum.  Similarly, if a moderator of a newsgroup doesn't publish
> something you send him, big deal, that's what he's there for, turning things
> down.  Similar criteria apply to newspapers, which are edited for interest
> and appropriateness.  There really are no media analogous to an unedited but
> money-costing public bulletin board system such as USENET.

But you fail to consider what you said above, that "due to limited resources"
certain things do not get published.  Computers are a limited resource.  You
don't have the right to post, you only have the right to be able to carry out
your job on the machine.  Posting is a *privilege*.  USENET on many machines
is a *privilege*.  Note that no netnews comes on UNIX distribution tapes, or
anything.  A site can elect to have netnews, likewise they can elect to de-
cide what they will allow to go up on the machine, and likewise they can de-
cide who will be allowed to read what, since none of these things affect how
well you are supposed to do your job.

> One thing that disturbs me with respect to such new media as the computer
> bulletin board and television is that people seem less concerned with civil
> rights issues as they apply to these new media.  For instance, the FCC has
> imposed a set of restrictions on television that would be clearly
> un-Constitutional if applied to books or magazines, yet very few people seem
> to mind.  Very few people seem to be worried about the issue of ideological
> discrimination with respect to bulletin board systems, either.  If we don't
> make a point of applying the First Amendment (and such other civil rights as
> may apply) to these new media, we are jeapordizing not only our own
> freedoms, but those of generations to come.

Probably because they are new (especially computer bboards) and the legal im-
plications of certain material on them are only beginning to be understood.
I agree that a more formal set of rules and regulations should be made, how-
ever the current trend seems to be getting the technology together first,
rather than understanding its implications first.

Note:  I do not necessarily agree/disagree with such things as censorship, 
moderation or denial of privileges, I am just voicing my opinions.
-- 
			Baby tie your hair back in a long white bow ...
			Meet me in the field, behind the dynamo ...

Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!houxm!gregbo