rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/23/84)
Charlie Martin says: > 1) no matter WHO funded them, and no matter WHAT they're saying > these newpapers have the right to publish ANYTHING THEY DAMNED > WELL PLEASE! Says who? Jefferson, Paine, Mill ("On Liberty"), the Federalist Papers, (small "l") libertarians, the Constitution, the US Code? Newspapers have no "right" to libel or slander, or to publish evidence illegally obtained by wiretapping (a felony), or fraud -- impersonating a lesbian (no snigger- ing, please) & breaking an implicit promise of confidentiality (thus, invasion of privacy as well, a misdemeanor). > 2) the reporterial (sp?) tactics you mention (concealed tapes > -- consider "60 Minute's" concealed cameras) have been used at > some length by liberal (statist-on-the-left) press, and I've > not heard of any trials against them... To my knowledge, only rightwing groups, including quite a few campus tabloids, have indulged in political or journalistic "dirty tricks" that repeatedly, even insistently, involved persecution (that, simply, is what it amounts to) of minorities already facing discrimination & prejudice. It's not "dirty politics as usual", but involves civil rights and other violations (see above). It's targeted at specific groups or individuals with little power or status, unlike military brass (Al Haig), or politicians (Democrats). It's not "politics/ journalism" of any kind, but criminal conduct enhanced by bigotry. Dartmouth is one of the most conservative schools in the ivy league; the ivy league has never been exactly a "hotbed" of liberalism. (The word "liberal" seems to have lost all content.) Both Democrats & Re- publicans, liberals & conservatives, at Dartmouth were apalled by the Review's antics. > 3) Anyone on the net advocating ANY form of censorship or punishment > or harassment (a class-action suit sounds pretty close to that, > no?) should -- > a) get someone to post them the hassles Tim Moroney had with > net censors, and > b) remember that, if you can do it to them, they can do it to > you. Cutting off external funding (& maybe services, too) isn't censorship (tho' maybe it's ill-conceived: as one respondent pointed out, should campus ski clubs be denied free equipment from manufacturers, etc? & don't schools depend in many ways on donations?). The tabloids are approved student publications, getting funding from student activities budgets as well. They also borrow the prestige, & sometimes the name (DARTMOUTH Review), of the school itself. They're part of the university and fall under its rules & regulations, which proscribe criminal conduct. Perhaps this ought to affect how they put out their papers, if not what they express in them. So what? A cutoff of external funding for student publi- cations would mean they could either go offcampus, retaining access to & distribution on campus, typically like many external publications, and having no administration except the cops & courts to deal with, or they could be content with their campus funding & the administration's presence, and compete on an equal footing with other student publications. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (10/24/84)
Ron (Cheers) Rizzo writes, > ... Newspapers have > no "right" to libel or slander, or to publish evidence illegally obtained > by wiretapping (a felony), or fraud -- impersonating a lesbian (no snigger- > ing, please) & breaking an implicit promise of confidentiality (thus, > invasion of privacy as well, a misdemeanor). The accusations of illegality seem largely based on this one case--it has been called an "invasion of privacy." The way I have heard the case, it involved a student reporter for the Dartmouth Review attending a meeting of some homosexual group, one publicly advertised, held on campus, and reporting about it. I haven't read the report, but by the commotion it has caused (the University is/was considering disciplinary action against the student reporter), I would imagine it was critical, and perhaps stirred up outrage in decent people who had not realized what such groups were all about. Inasmuch as homosexual activists avoid scrutiny of their activities by the ignorant majority, I can understand their reaction, and their efforts to recruit others not of their ilk to agitate against the Dartmouth Review on spurious legal or ethical grounds. Scott Plunkett, ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett
lambert@mcvax.UUCP (Lambert Meertens) (10/25/84)
: > Inasmuch as homosexual activists avoid scrutiny of their activities by > the ignorant majority, I can understand their reaction, and their efforts > to recruit others not of their ilk to agitate against the Dartmouth > Review on spurious legal or ethical grounds. Isn't this a perfect specimen of innuendo? -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,philabs,decvax}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (10/25/84)
[Scott Plunkett] (I guess I do have some time!) For the nature of the ruckus over the Review's publishing personal info about attendees at a gay students meeting, see my original posting, or even Tom Albrecht's quote from NATIONAL REVIEW. There's no need to speculate, particularly when it's used as an occasion to retail a few bigoted opinions. Cheers, Ron Rizzo
manis@ubc-vision.CDN (Vincent Manis) (10/27/84)
Scott Plunkett talks of lesbians and gays working in secrecy to recruit others not of our ilk to our cause. Any gay group has to maintain some level of secrecy, because there are individuals out there (some of them contributors to this newsgroup) who would fire, evict, or fail someone who was discovered to be a member of a gay group (maybe or maybe not actually gay/lesbian). It seems strange to criticise lesbians/gays for simultaneously wishing privacy for meetings on the one hand andfor wishing protection on the basis of sexual orientation on the other. But then one motss homophobe has declared that he doesn't make rational decisions anyway.
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (10/31/84)
>> 1) no matter WHO funded them, and no matter WHAT they're saying >> these newpapers have the right to publish ANYTHING THEY DAMNED >> WELL PLEASE! > Says who? Jefferson, Paine, Mill ("On Liberty"), the Federalist Papers, > (small "l") libertarians, the Constitution, the US Code? Newspapers have > no "right" to libel or slander, or to publish evidence illegally obtained > by wiretapping (a felony), or fraud -- impersonating a lesbian (no snigger- > ing, please) & breaking an implicit promise of confidentiality (thus, > invasion of privacy as well, a misdemeanor). Newspapers do indeed have to the right to libel, slander, publish illegally obtained evidence, etc. However, once they have done so, they are wide open to civil and criminal redress through the judicial process. There's a distinction between punishing someone for publishing something "wrong", and preventing them from publishing it in the first place. The latter is called "prior restraint", and has been wholeheartedly rejected by the courts on a number of occasions. To guarantee that society will have a "New York Times", you have to allow a "National Enquirer". -- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] (orca!andrew.tektronix@rand-relay) [ARPA]
bjohnson@muddcs.UUCP (Brad Johnson) (11/06/84)
What's all the huffing and puffing about corrupting youth? Let us be corrupted! It gives us more character.
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (11/08/84)
In article <bbncca.1062> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >For the nature of the ruckus over the Review's publishing personal >info about attendees at a gay students meeting, see my original >posting, or even Tom Albrecht's quote from NATIONAL REVIEW. There's >no need to speculate, particularly when it's used as an occasion >to retail a few bigoted opinions. > > Cheers, > Ron Rizzo The question seems to be whether the reporter violated any rules of conduct. Now, if this was an open meeting on college property for an organization sponsored with students' money then why shouldn't it have been reported on? Suppose it was the Young Nazi Party or the Whaleoil Alliance taking college funds; shouldn't they be subject to observation from outsiders? If these folk want to come out of the closet they better be prepared to come under the scrutiny of the light of day. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl