mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (02/25/84)
First, I'd like to point out that moderation is not the same as censorship. Moderation is the protection *of a newsgroup* from whatever the moderator deems it needs protection from (usually too much traffic). Censorship is where someone tries to prevent information from getting out to the public. As long as there are some unmoderated newsgroups (and of course, there will always be lots of these) people always have a way to get info out, in the worst case the submitter may have to choose their second choice newsgroup, and usually the moderator will suggest a more appropriate newsgroup. I'd also like to point out that perhaps half the people on Usenet are subject to some sort of censorship: they usually have access to proprietary information of their employers, and they aren't allowed to post this info. Often they are not allowed to publicly discuss details of what they are working on. And, of course, most of us have access to UNIX, and the UNIX license prevents us from posting pieces of UNIX to a public place such as Usenet. Mark Horton
piet@mcvax.UUCP (Piet Beertema) (02/27/84)
<>
Sorry Mark, but you missed the point: my inquiry is not about the
(in)ability to give somehow restricted information, but about the
freedom to publicly give a *personal* or *private* opinion on certain
topics. And it's for that reason that I specially pointed at the
newsgroup (eu)net.politics.
Second I know very well the difference between moderation and censorship,
but since the boundary between those two is very vague, censorship tends
to euphemistically be presented as "moderation". That's why I did (and
do) *not* speak about moderation, but about "moderation".
--
Piet Beertema
CWI (Center for Math. & Comp. Science), Amsterdam
...{decvax,philabs}!mcvax!pietper@erix.UUCP (Per Hedeland) (02/29/84)
<>
There is a related point, though: An employee might due to his work have
access to e g classified information, which to a great extent influences
his "personal" opininions. In this case, while he can freely express those
opinions, he is prevented from fully motivating them. (Perhaps that means
that it would be best not to even express them?)
Per Hedeland
..{decvax, philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!per or per@erix.UUCPdave@qtlon.UUCP (Dave Lukes) (03/11/84)
I personally think that all opinions (however motivated) are worth
hearing, so if someone wants to say something, but can't give a reason,
why not just say: `I think such and such, but I'm not allowed to say why'?
Of course, if even revealing the `such and such' will result in a
breach of confidence, there is a problem: but in most cases, I doubt it.
Yours in freedom of speech
Dave Lukes (<U.K.>!uck!qtlon!dave)