Xref: utzoo soc.culture.jewish:8563 news.misc:2249 news.sysadmin:1810
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!ucbvax!husc6!yale!engelson
From: engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,news.misc,news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism (Jew-hatred) on the network. What should be done?
Message-ID: <44785@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 4 Dec 88 06:30:08 GMT
References: <586@oravax.UUCP>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson)
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 107
In-reply-to: harper@oravax.UUCP (Doug Harper)

In article <586@oravax.UUCP>, harper@oravax (Doug Harper) writes:
>References: <1748YZKCU@CUNYVM> <577@oravax.UUCP> <44387@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
>
>In article <44387@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) writes:
>
>>In article <577@oravax.UUCP>, harper@oravax (Doug Harper) writes:
>
>[Earlier discussion of censorship elided.]
>
>>>Can it be done?  Perhaps.  Should it be done?  Never.
>>>The expression of all views is protected by the Constitution.
>>
>>May I ask the esteemed gentleman in what Article or Amendment to our
>>Constitution it is written that a man has the right to unlimited
>>access and expression on the net?  
>
>I believe that Mr. Engleson has misunderstood me.

I believe that Mr. Harper has misspelled my name.

>I'm not saying that
>everyone has an absolute right to access to the net, just that access
>may not be denied or revoked on the basis of what the individual says
>on the net.  My position is that the net (though not every
>participating site) is publicly funded (through state universities and
>the Department of Defense), and is therefore a free-speech forum.  This
>convinces me that not even a private site may revoke an account for the
>purpose of silencing a user.

If I own a computer, and give an account to someone for some reason,
you are now saying that I cannot revoke that account whenever I
choose?  Net access is a priviledge, not a right, sir.

>>                                   To pursue `reductio ad absurdum',
>>do I then have the right to demand my right of free expression on the
>>local television station to foment rebellion against the government of
>>these United States?
>
>There seem to be two questions here.  First, there is the question of
>his demanding to use a private resource in order to speak.  Second,
>there is the question of fomenting rebellion.

True.

>If Mr. Engleson demanded to speak in my house or my ice cream parlor
>(if I had one), I could legitimately refuse him.  If I owned a
>television station, though, I'd be using a public resource, the
>"airwaves", under license, and would not have an absolute right of
>refusal.  But if I am correct about the net's being a free-speech forum
>whose operating costs are publicly defrayed, both of these would seem
>to be beside the point.  Could someone who is expert in communications
>law speak to this?

First, I believe that under law if I own a private TV station, I can
refuse access to whomever I want (unless it falls under such special
cases as 'equal candidate airtime', etc).  Secondly, you should note
that net access is paid for by the various sites on the net, rather
than publicly.  And thus, I would think that any site can legitimately
refuse access to its resources to pass along messages it didn't want
to pass along.

>I stand corrected on the second question.  I spoke too strongly: the
>Constitution does not protect the expression of all views, but in the
>Schenk case in 1919, the Supreme Court ruled that only "clear and
>present danger" justifies the limitation of free speech.  Under the
>Smith Act of 1940 there is no right to foment rebellion against the
>government.  To the best of my knowledge, this is the law of the land,
>but again, this would be better addressed by an expert.

Thank you.

[ elision note elided ]

>>Prosecution was not called for, my dear sir.  What was called for was
>>that this incident be brought to the attention of the bigot's
>>sysadmin, for him to deal with in an appropriate manner.  It was not
>>suggested that the man be thrown in jail.
>
>I have to disagree: those actions are *not* appropriate.  What is
>appropriate is for Ms. Gould to file criminal charges.  I would like
>to suggest that she set up a fund for her legal expenses.  I would be
>glad to contribute, and I'm sure many others feel the same way.

I as well would, but I sadly believe that it would probably get
nowhere in this radically individualised country.  This case would
follow many precedents, I believe, in reaffirming the right to free
speech, no matter how distasteful, etc. etc.  Individualism, as
opposed to sheep-ism is to be applauded.  As opposed to a sense of
community and a true consideration of the effects one's acts have on
others, it is reprehensible.

	-Sean-




----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student
Yale Department of Computer Science
51 Prospect St.
New Haven, CT 06520
----------------------------------------------------------------------
G-d, according to Einstein, does not play dice with the world.
Well, maybe; but He sure is into shell games.
		--Jerry Fodor
		in "Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the
		    Music of the Spheres"