Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim
From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.news
Subject: Re: "FREE"dom of the net is costing over $600,000 this year
Message-ID: <30@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 17:49:51 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.30
Posted: Thu Nov  8 17:49:51 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 03:57:21 EST
References: <201@looking.UUCP> <7@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <1842@nsc.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 76

>> 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.

> 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?

> There are few to no precedents that can be safely applied to Usenet. This
> is one reason why we scream about copyright violations (see the Joe Bob
> discussions) as loudly as some of us do. We MIGHT be safe posting Joe Bob,
> but we might not.

I have been among the loudest protestors against copyright violations on the
net.  Perhaps I missed something while I was away, but how could
unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material NOT be illegal?

> 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.

> 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.

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.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K
uucp:	Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO,
	or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax