richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/03/89)
In article <8090@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >We are talking about the government! And in the instance at hand, the >government, via its agent Bill Verity at Penn State, have said they found >the speech of someone to be offensive to their notions of what is in vogue >at present, to wit, the lifestyles of homosexuals. Tolerating homosexuals is ``in vogue'' ? Perhaps we can look forward to the day when it's ``in vogue'' to tolerate blacks in South Africa ? >According to Verity, Whitehead's instructor has been notified of the >heresy of his student. I suspect some appropriate discipline will be meted >out to teach Whitehead a lesson about having thoughts like that in the >future. Thanks to Mr. Verity, the delicacies of the Usenet audience have >been protected, and our virgin eyes and ears will never again be violated >by someone daring to preach heresy about homosexuals. > >And Usenet will live happily ever after. Once again, the imminent death >of the net has been postponed for another week. We owe Mr. Verity our >deepest thanks for protecting us by bravely taking the high moral road and >cancelling out some poor stooge's Usenet account. Whitehead advocated killing homosexuals, and you're blathering about free speech ? Two things are guarenteed to get your net.access pulled. 1) doing something illegal and getting caught and 2) doing something so completely stupid that you cause hundreds if not thousands of pieces of mail to be zapped to the powers that be at the site where you perpetrated the completely stupid act. So where do you draw the line Patrick ? What if there was an .EDU site that spewed anti-semitic white power neo nazi garbage into a few newsgroups ? Would you stand of for their freedom of speech? What if they used it as a vehice to organize death groups ? Freedom of speech ? Even if the school itself did'nt want this to continue ? Of course if merely being a fucking moron was grounds to get your account pulled, you'd probably be kicked off portal. Or is that what happened ? -- ``I'm from New York. I hate everywhere else'' - anon richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/05/89)
In article <14130@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Tolerating homosexuals is ``in vogue'' ? Come on! I don't call in here to give English grammar lessons. Look at your own dictionary in the future instead of expecting me to define things. Toleration of homosexuals is a popular stance these days. It has not always been so. Many years ago homosexuals were treated as badly as, say, the blacks in South Africa. Even worse, actually: in the seventeenth century and earlier they were burned at the stake. Used as, uh, faggots. I think that is how they came to be called by the same word. >Perhaps we can look forward to the day when it's ``in vogue'' to >tolerate blacks in South Africa ? Well, let's hope so. I think the treatment they get from the government there is detestable. Not only are the South African blacks treated badly, their defenders are also hassled. It is not uncommon for the government there to silence persons thought to stir up the blacks and cause some aggravation for the government. They prohibit them from giving public speeches among other things. It sort of reminds one of the way Mr. Verity at Penn State responds to troublesome speech-makers. >Whitehead advocated killing homosexuals, and you're blathering about >free speech ? Why of course I am. Isn't that the proper ACLU-like position to take on the matter? Didn't the American Nazis go to the village of Skokie, IL and advocate killing Jews with the ACLU's blessings and assistance? Aren't most liberal homosexual activists great supporters of the ACLU? All of a sudden when it is homosexuals suggested as the objects of the genocide the deal is off huh? If the American Nazis can go to the village of Skokie with the blessings of a federal judge and the ACLU has the nerve to blanket it in free speech then why can't Whitehead go to the 'electronic village' called soc.motss and advocate the same hateful things? >Two things are guarenteed to get your net.access pulled. 1) doing >something illegal and getting caught and..... Speech is never illegal in this country, according to the ACLU. If all that distinquishes Whitehead from others similarly situated at PSU is his speech, then no crime has been committed. Ask any ACLU lawyer. You *do* support the ACLU, don't you? On the other hand, if Whitehead failed to pay his tuition, or computer access fees, or whatever; or he broke broke into another user's account -- or actually did something ILLEGAL -- then yes, one might argue that his computer access should be removed; and this would of neccessity include his access to Usenet, at least from that site. > 2) doing something >so completely stupid that you cause hundreds if not thousands >of pieces of mail to be zapped to the powers that be at the site >where you perpetrated the completely stupid act. Whitehead did not generate all the messages which went back to his site. Those were generated by the users who wrote him or his sysadmin -- not the other way around. Whitehead wrote one message, posted a dozen places. How many of you wrote back, cross posting everywhere in the process? So who was the biggest waster of bandwidth? >So where do you draw the line Patrick? I can draw the line almost anywhere except when when it comes to the liberal hypocrisy I see spouted off by those of you who on the one hand support freedom of speech for every crazed fool who comes along except when your own little village is violated. Everytime I *even imply* there might be some limits to obnoxious behavior which the ACLU supports under the guise of the United States Constitution I get a ton of replies from folks telling me I should not pick on a fine, noble, wonderful group like ACLU. Well, I think if the ACLU did get interested in Whitehead's case, they would be on his side. >What if there was an .EDU site >that spewed anti-semitic white power neo nazi garbage into >a few newsgroups ? Would you stand of for their freedom of speech? >What if they used it as a vehice to organize death groups ? Freedom >of speech ? Even if the school itself did'nt want this to >continue ? Well I would not like it at all. But what makes you think I *liked* Mr. Whitehead's speech? As far as I am concerned, a plague on all of your houses! I repeat: it was not Whitehead's message I support, nor is it anti-semitic white power messages I am exclusively against. I just thought it funny that a group of people (homosexuals) who for many years have been among the biggest allies of the American 'Civil Liberties' Union one day got their own oxe gored. Their own little village got invaded by someone who came to spread hate and discontent. And after years of indoctrination in The True Meaning Of Free Speech And The American Way, *they suddenly forgot, or chose to ignore all their lessons*. Let me be frank, and succinct with you: I can argue this with you from either side of the coin. You want to switch roles for awhile? You argue in favor of the speech, and I will argue against it. Whenever you wish, we will switch sides again. This is a very gray area, and I must say in all honesty his speech was repugnant to me. But so are your ethics and the apparent inability of the residents of soc.motss to be consistent in their views; at least of the several who wrote to get Whitehead banned from speaking. >Of course if merely being a fucking moron was grounds to get your >account pulled, you'd probably be kicked off portal. Or is that what >happened ? Were you speaking to me or addressing that part of the message to Verity over at Penn State? My problem with Portal actually had nothing to do with Portal at all, but with Telenet's new 30 hours for $30 limit and the change in pricing by Illinois Bell which made a call to the Telenet switcher downtown become a timed call amounting to about $2.50 per hour. When both Telenet and telco were giving untimed, unlimited calling, Portal was one of the best deals I have ever seen, at $10 per month for several good features of which Usenet was only one. I already use the 30 hour allotment from Telenet for other stuff, and really did not want to run into overtime with those people and another $30/$60 per month fee for 30/60 hours of reading/writing Usenet. Phone bills of $300-400 per month are not fun. Then too, I could have (and was invited by Portal to) maintain Telecom Digest and comp.dcom.telecom from a machine at the Portal site; but to do so, a huge list of arpanet addresses would have had to be converted to uucp style addressing, and it just made better sense to work it locally from a machine here and do Usenet from chinet, a local, untimed phone call. Speaking of fucking morons, however, I should tell you about the time Harvey Grossman (local ACLU executive) and I were over at the courthouse and we got to talking about Walter Polovchak, the kid from the Soviet Union who wanted asylum in this country. But that's a story for another day. Remember, show consistency! Either free speech is for everyone, including people who hate homosexuals, or it is for no one. Or was it porn dealers that had to have it in order for the rest of us to have it? Athiests?? Anyway, you get my point, I think. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (04/05/89)
In article <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >>Two things are guarenteed to get your net.access pulled. 1) doing >>something illegal and getting caught and..... > >Speech is never illegal in this country, according to the ACLU. If all >that distinquishes Whitehead from others similarly situated at PSU is >his speech, then no crime has been committed. PSU is NOT the government. There is no constitutionally protected right to USENET. Even if such a right did exist, the constitution would only prevent the government from restricting your access to USENET. Portal and Chinet would still be permitted to deny access to anyone they saw fit to. At this very moment Portal is denying MY god-given right to free speech by denying me access to their system. That I have never paid them a cent shouldn't matter ... Mr. Whitehead is free to roam the streets of Amerika spouting whatever nonsense he so desires. He may do this all day long for the remainder of his life, which won't be too long if he enters the wrong parts of some towns ... Mr. Whitehead does not have the right to obligate myself or PSU to provide a forum for his stupidity. This is NOT an ACLU issue. No constitutional right has been infringed. No constitutional right is even involved here. -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Porsche does not recommend InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | exceeding any speed limits" UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +-- -- Porsche Ad ------------
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (04/06/89)
One more time, a voice of reason will try to explain the difference between Constitutionally protected freedom of speech and a USENET posting account. The exasperation of the author will become apparent by the end of the message. In article <8132@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <14130@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > It sort of reminds one of the way Mr. Verity > at Penn State responds to troublesome speech-makers. > Oh, you mean Mr. Verity had a group of campus policemen blackjack this fool down at Campus Police headquarters in a windowless room? Or did Mr. Verity simply have the Penn State army shoot him? Perhaps he let him off easy, and just locked the toad in his dorm room and announced that anyone talking with him would be arrested? --> GET A CLUE: <-- Governments have powers to prevent any discussion of ideas, any time, anywhere. Mr. Verity simply enforced Penn State's right not to pay for someone's odious behavior. > If the American Nazis can go to the village of Skokie with the blessings > of a federal judge and the ACLU has the nerve to blanket it in free speech Because the government of Skokie did not have the Constitutional authority to prevent these odious people from expressing their ideas in public in a peaceable assembly. Had they decided to do so on someone's lawn instead of the public street they could have been driven off with gunfire if needed. > then why can't Whitehead go to the 'electronic village' called soc.motss > and advocate the same hateful things? Because the vast majority of people who own and pay for USENET machines don't want (a) odious postings of this magnitude (b) in newsgroups where they aren't welcome. > >Two things are guarenteed to get your net.access pulled. 1) doing > >something illegal and getting caught and..... > Speech is never illegal in this country, according to the ACLU. Wrong. It is clear that you specifically intend never to understand the Constitution, or possibly anything at all. > Whitehead did not generate all the messages which went back to his site. > Those were generated by the users who wrote him or his sysadmin -- not > the other way around. Whitehead wrote one message, posted a dozen places. Posted twice, note, when the first posting generated very little flamage. > How many of you wrote back, cross posting everywhere in the process? > So who was the biggest waster of bandwidth? > "It wasn't my fault! I was just pointing my Uzi in the mall at random! All those people who deliberately got in the way of the bullets are at fault!" > I just thought I doubt that. > it funny that a group of people (homosexuals) who for many > years have been among the biggest allies of the American 'Civil Liberties' > Union one day got their own oxe gored. Their own little village got > invaded by someone who came to spread hate and discontent. And after years > of indoctrination in The True Meaning Of Free Speech And The American Way, > *they suddenly forgot, or chose to ignore all their lessons*. > Since you have made so abundantly clear that you think freedom of speech means the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, I will let your local Klan know that you've invited them to have their next meeting in your living room. And don't you DARE try to suppress their freedom to spout evil _in your living room_, because it's their RIGHT, right? Enjoy! -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Remainder Khomeini!
hoffman@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Richard C. Hoffman) (04/06/89)
In article <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: [responding to Richard Sexton's article] Look, Patrick: Under normal circumstances I am neither a reader of soc.motss, nor a representative for PSU in general, or PSUVM in particular. Nor am I a member of any group which Whitehead advocated "exterminating." So, for me, your arguments about "all you gays are being so hypocritical supporting the ACLU for fighting for gay rights, and not supporting them when they say all speech is protected under the First Amendment" falls apart on the one factor immediately. The rest of it falls apart below. > > . . .Not only are the South African blacks treated badly, >their defenders are also hassled. It is not uncommon for the government >there to silence persons thought to stir up the blacks and cause some >aggravation for the government. They prohibit them from giving public >speeches among other things. It sort of reminds one of the way Mr. Verity >at Penn State responds to troublesome speech-makers. > Not at all. Bill Verity would be an idiot to attempt to prevent James Whitehead from giving a public speech. That has nothing at all to do with the issue. Good to see that you're so politically conscious, though. >>Whitehead advocated killing homosexuals, and you're blathering about >>free speech ? > >Why of course I am. Isn't that the proper ACLU-like position to take on >the matter? Didn't the American Nazis go to the village of Skokie, IL >and advocate killing Jews with the ACLU's blessings and assistance? >Aren't most liberal homosexual activists great supporters of the ACLU? >All of a sudden when it is homosexuals suggested as the objects of the >genocide the deal is off huh? > No. I would *love* to see James Whitehead go to Skokie, IL. I would buy him the ticket. Provided he didn't come back. If the American Nazis were, as a group, to get PSUVM accounts (not so impossible as you might think) and then post letters about "why jews, those loathsome sloths of the earth, should be exterminated" to soc.culture.jewish, in addition to claiming not to actually *believe* any of the things they said, but were trying to get attention and response, they would also most likely have their accounts suspended. Swiftly. > >Speech is never illegal in this country, according to the ACLU. 1) If that is indeed the literal position of the ACLU (which it is not, last time I heard anything about it), it is wrong. 2) Usenet is a special case, being a privately funded network system. I've covered many of the legal aspects here before, so there's no need to repeat them now. The ACLU takes such radical positions on "free speech" because it has to. Taking a radical position avoids having to make difficult and possibly unpopular judgement calls on individual issues, once you state your initial stand The American Civil Liberties Union takes a stand that the First Amendment is all-encompassing, because it is MUCH easier to say "I oppose the restriction of expression of any kind" than to say, "I oppose most restrictions on freedom of expression." With the second case, you then have to define what does and does not fall within your definition. Messy. And that is why I belong neither to the NRA nor the ACLU, although I agree with at least 50% of the positions taken by each. Better to steer a middle path through the rhetoric created by groups which are necessarily uniformly radical by their very natures. Damn. Sidetracked. Back to the topic. Topic? > >Whitehead did not generate all the messages which went back to his site. >Those were generated by the users who wrote him or his sysadmin -- not >the other way around. Whitehead wrote one message, posted a dozen places. >How many of you wrote back, cross posting everywhere in the process? >So who was the biggest waster of bandwidth? > But he made his posts with the intent to create a great deal of net volume, by his own admission. He succeeded, and in that respect is still succeeding. > >I can draw the line almost anywhere except when when it comes to the liberal >hypocrisy I see spouted off by those of you who on the one hand support >freedom of speech for every crazed fool who comes along except when your >own little village is violated. Everytime I *even imply* there might be some >limits to obnoxious behavior which the ACLU supports under the guise of >the United States Constitution I get a ton of replies from folks telling me >I should not pick on a fine, noble, wonderful group like ACLU. > Sounds like a persecution complex to me. >Well, I think if the ACLU did get interested in Whitehead's case, they would >be on his side. And they would swiftly lose any case that came to court. > > . . .I just >thought it funny that a group of people (homosexuals) who for many >years have been among the biggest allies of the American 'Civil Liberties' >Union one day got their own oxe gored. Their own little village got >invaded by someone who came to spread hate and discontent. And after years >of indoctrination in The True Meaning Of Free Speech And The American Way, >*they suddenly forgot, or chose to ignore all their lessons*. The ACLU has fought for the rights of gays and lesbians to avoid discrimination (esp in the workplace) based entirely upon sexual orientation. I would suspect that such legal action is supported almost universally by gay people. That does not imply, however, that any particular person, or homosexuals as a group, support all the goals of the ACLU, any more than I support all the goals of the ACLU. The various "rights" you are comparing are not directly related, and your tone here is just a bit too gleeful for my taste. > >Let me be frank, and succinct with you: I can argue this with you from >either side of the coin. You want to switch roles for awhile? You argue >in favor of the speech, and I will argue against it. Whenever you wish, >we will switch sides again. Ah, so you don't really have a side. I see. Rather than actually having an opinion on this matter, your only point in making this post was to point out the "hypocracy" of gay people wanting both to avoid being persecuted and discriminated against, and also wanting to avoid being harassed in the newsgroups devoted to homosexual issues by ignorant bigots who tell them that they should be "exterminated." Absolutely brilliant. As opposed to the rest of us who feel strongly enough about some aspect of this issue that we take time out to debate it, you are simply engaging in a little mental game to waste some time. You, sirrah, are an idiot. >all honesty his speech was repugnant to me. But so are your ethics and >the apparent inability of the residents of soc.motss to be consistent in >their views; at least of the several who wrote to get Whitehead banned >from speaking. > More brilliance. Oh, of course you should judge *all* readers of soc.motss, both gay and het, by the "several" reactions you personally bothered to read. Simply amazing. In addition to there being, incidentally, no inconsistency in wanting to get Whitehead's posting privileges suspended and supporting gay rights. >Anyway, you get my point, I think. > Actually, there appear to be two possibilities: 1) You have no point to make whatsoever. 2) You have your own axe to grind, and this issue provides a convenient excuse. I think I would rather believe "1." Richard C. Hoffman
oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (04/06/89)
In article <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >Toleration of homosexuals is a popular stance these days. You are mistaking the widely used meaning of the world "popular" -- "in vogue", a fad, a (passing) trend -- with "accepted" and "commonplace". "Popular" has connotations that make it an expression of contempt in this situation. Are you contemptuous of the commonplace and accepted tolerance of homosexuality? -- "No regrets, no apologies." -- Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP:...!ucla-cs!lcc!oleg
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/07/89)
In article <14811@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) writes: >PSU is NOT the government. It's not? It would be the first time I have ever heard the word 'State' used in the name of a university that ws not actually operated by the state. PSU is a private corporation is it, with stockholders and such? Or maybe a sole proprietorship of someone? I think it is a part of the government. >There is no constitutionally protected right >to USENET. No, there isn't. But there is a constitutionally protected right to make speeches of your choice in places which have, by default or otherwise become a public forum. By default perhaps, students at PSU who otherwise have accounts on the computer system are entitled to participate in Usenet. >Even if such a right did exist, the constitution would only >prevent the government from restricting your access to USENET. Such a right does exist, by default, since students with computer accounts at PSU -- a government insitution -- are entitled to use Usenet. And by the constitution, the government, or its agents at PSU cannot restrict access to Usenet based on any particular speech. If there is anyone connected with Usenet *speaking only on behalf of Usenet* who places a ban on Whitehead's participation, then that is a different matter. First of all, there is no such person, and second, by virtue of there being no effective way to enforce the rules of Usenet, there is no way Usenet can get rid of Whitehead. The government banned Whitehead, but it is not the government's place to ban anyone from using Usenet. It is up to the Usenet community to do that, but we have no mechanism for it. >Portal and Chinet would still be permitted to deny access to anyone they saw >fit to. That is because they are private establishments. They can do as they please with their computers (again, as always there are exceptions). >At this very moment Portal is denying MY god-given right to >free speech by denying me access to their system. That I have never >paid them a cent shouldn't matter ... It makes all the difference in the world. You have no go-given right to use someone else's private property. For that matter (and please read this carefully) **you do not even have an automatic right to use the property of the government** however -- (here we go again!) If the government has been permitting the use of its property for public forum purposes (in this case the public forum is the tie-in to Usenet) then the government then the government can do one of three things: 1) Permit the forum to continue as it is. 2) Cancel the forum entirely, citing other uses for the resources involved. 3) Select and allow/disallow speakers in the forum using *legal* reasons for the selections; i.e. the payment of a fee by all, and Whitehead did not pay the fee; the speaker has posed a security risk to the welfare of others there. The speaker cannot reasonably expect to wave around a bomb or a gun during his speech. The electronic speaker cannot resonably assume s/he is entitled to rifle the email boxes of others; or use a fraudulent password, etc. But the government cannot use the nature of the speech as the reason for exclusion. And that was the only reason Mr. Verity killed his account: people were saying the speech was not what they wanted to hear. >Mr. Whitehead does not have the right to obligate myself or PSU to >provide a forum for his stupidity. This is NOT an ACLU issue. No >constitutional right has been infringed. No constitutional right is >even involved here. He does not have the right to obligate you. You have the right to refuse to enter into any contracts with him. PSU; i.e. the government, also has the right to refuse to enter into a contract with him; but once they do enter into a contract, they are stuck with it until they find a valid and constitutionally inoffensive way of ending the contract. When he graduates from school, or withdraws, or fails to pay his tuition or otherwise breaks some rule ** spelled out when the contract was started ** then the government can bounce him out. He is a student at PSU and is entitled to do the things other students do. If you choose to obligate yourself regards Usenet by agreeing with some other site to pass their traffic, or you obligate yourself to display some news group, then if some site is willing to originate Whitehead's messages, you are obligated to put them on your machine not from any obligation to Whitehead, but to the sites up/downstream expecting to get the feed as you got it without alterations/deletions in the interim, and/or the users expecting to see the news group intact. It is an 'ACLU issue' in the sense that they stick their noses into everything and also in the sense that a person at Penn *STATE* University, a government establishment, has been disciplined by the government on account of his speech. I hope this clears up any confusion you had on the subject. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/12/89)
In article <1216@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: >Oh, you mean Mr. Verity had a group of campus policemen blackjack this fool >down at Campus Police headquarters in a windowless room? Or did Mr. Verity >simply have the Penn State army shoot him? Perhaps he let him off easy, and >just locked the toad in his dorm room and announced that anyone talking with >him would be arrested? No, he simply unlawfully and unconstitutionally refused to allow him to participate in a forum maintained on government owned computing machinery at a government owned facility on the basis of a speech that he made. >--> GET A CLUE: <-- Governments have powers to >prevent any discussion of ideas, any time, anywhere. Not the United States government, or by extension, the government of the states of the United States. They don't have that authority. I suppose one could argue that they have the power, through the military, if they wished to do it that way. But I thionk its safe to say our government has no authority to squelch discussion of ideas at any time. >Mr. Verity simply >enforced Penn State's right not to pay for someone's odious behavior. Are you forgetting that Mr. Verity is employed by the government of the state of Pennsylvania? He is employed to help maintain a *government owned* facility where historically a forum has been permitted to take place, and where qualified participants have been permitted to speak? Odious or not, see three paragraphs above: the government cannot bar someone from making a speech. Now had Whitehead followed up on his speech with some actual murder or other violence or whatever, then he can be stopped. >> If the American Nazis can go to the village of Skokie with the blessings >> of a federal judge and the ACLU has the nerve to blanket it in free speech > >Because the government of Skokie did not have the Constitutional authority >to prevent these odious people from expressing their ideas in public in >a peaceable assembly. Had they decided to do so on someone's lawn instead >of the public street they could have been driven off with gunfire if needed. And like the government of Skokie, the government of Pennsylvania, and its authorized representatives do not have the constitutional authority to prevent people from expressing their ideas in public in a peaceable assembly. Had Whitehead tried to use your personal computer or mine, we could have quite legally stopped him, or never allowed him to start in the first place. Don't confuse the owner of the computer which Mr. Verity supervises with the owner of the computer in your home or mine; or the computer at AT&T or General Motors. They are privately owned. The PSU computer is owned by the government, and routinely made available to qualified members of the public. The government has to find some other legitimate reason to stop the use of the machine. Speech alone won't cut it. >Because the vast majority of people who own and pay for USENET machines don't >want (a) odious postings of this magnitude (b) in newsgroups where they >aren't welcome. Are you now suggesting that Usenet is a democracy rather than an anarchy? The majority vote decides things? The way to avoid an 'odious posting of this magnitude' is to not make it available for readers on your machine. Your readers will never know about it; they will live in blissful ignorance of the dispute, and those sites that do want to display the message can do so. >> Speech is never illegal in this country, according to the ACLU. >Wrong. It is clear that you specifically intend never to understand >the Constitution, or possibly anything at all. You might be surprised. In the original message, correspondent said 'there are times the ACLU considers speech illegal' (approximate quote). I then replied as above, that the *ACLU* -- repeat, *ACLU* has claimed on various occassions that speech; standing alone on its own merits -- is NEVER illegal. And you come back, not with examples of where the ACLU did in fact agree that speech under some circumstances is illegal, but instead, talking about my understanding of the constitution! As a matter of fact, I can think of a few examples of 'illegal speech'; speech which receives no constitutional protection -- but I am sure the ACLU would disagree with me on that point. >> Whitehead did not generate all the messages which went back to his site. >> Those were generated by the users who wrote him or his sysadmin -- not >> the other way around. Whitehead wrote one message, posted a dozen places. >Posted twice, note, when the first posting generated very little flamage. >> How many of you wrote back, cross posting everywhere in the process? >> So who was the biggest waster of bandwidth? >> >"It wasn't my fault! I was just pointing my Uzi in the mall at random! >All those people who deliberately got in the way of the bullets are at fault!" I have not yet been able to detirmine if you *actually believe* an analogy like this is correct, or if you just posted it in the hopes of causing still more hate and discontent. It seems really strange to have to explain all this, but firing a gun at a crowd of people randomly is an act of violence. A speech is not an act of violence. And in any event, people who dodge bullets coming at them are not doing the same thing as people who fire bullets back at the first person. I will overlook your false analogy this time, but please try use a more appropriate one the next time we correspond. >> I just thought >I doubt that. You doubt what? That I think; or that I have the capacity to think; or that I think politically correct thoughts about homosexuals? Which? >Since you have made so abundantly clear that you think freedom of speech >means the right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, I will let your local >Klan know that you've invited them to have their next meeting in your >living room. And don't you DARE try to suppress their freedom to spout >evil _in your living room_, because it's their RIGHT, right? Enjoy! Where the GOVERNMENT; i.e. in the issue at hand, Pennsylvania State University and its employee Verity are concerned, freedom of speech does mean the right to say anything, anywhere, and anytime, when using government facilities which have historically been defined as a forum. Neither my living room, nor yours is a forum. Neither my living room, nor yours is a government owned place. Neither you or I, or any private individual reading this message is obliged to assist someone else make a 'free speech'. The government is not obliged to help with it either, but when by wilfull action or default a forum exists under the auspices of the government, then the government cannot stop the forum merely because of the speech. Neither the Klan nor the Nazis are welcome in my living room; and I am sure the government at its facility in State College, PA does not welcome them either; but if they legitimatly enroll there, and take courses which entitle them to otherwise use the computer and participate in Usenet, then the government will have to put up with their speeches also. I do not hold that 'free speech' is legal in all cases; nor that private parties must ever accomodate it. And if there is some contention that Whitehead's speech was illegal on its face, then that should be decided by a judge or jury; neither of which are job descriptions which apply to Mr. Verity. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/13/89)
So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should
be able to get anything published in the state run university
supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ?
And Patrick, notice how *short* this article is.
--
``Parents who have children, have children who have children''
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVhoffman@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Richard C. Hoffman) (04/13/89)
In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > >No, he simply unlawfully and unconstitutionally refused to allow him to >participate in a forum maintained on government owned computing machinery >at a government owned facility on the basis of a speech that he made. > >Are you forgetting that Mr. Verity is employed by the government of the state >of Pennsylvania? He is employed to help maintain a *government owned* >facility where historically a forum has been permitted to take place, and >where qualified participants have been permitted to speak? > >And like the government of Skokie, the government of Pennsylvania, and its >authorized representatives do not have the constitutional authority to >prevent people from expressing their ideas in public in a peaceable >assembly. Had Whitehead tried to use your personal computer or mine, we >General Motors. They are privately owned. The PSU computer is owned by >the government, and routinely made available to qualified members of the >public. [etc., etc., etc.] I've been able to ignore this for a week now, and the B.S. level has finally hit my limit. Pardon my weakness. BTW, Patrick, notice the follow-up: line. If you're going to produce noise, at least keep it in a noise group. So your entire argument rests on the basis that The Pennsylvania State University is owned and operated by the State of Pennsylvania? Before you waste gigabits of bandwidth, at least make sure your basic assumptions are correct, ok? The Pennsylvania State University is a land-grant institution, not a State University (I know, the name confuses it, but try to keep up, alright?) On July 2, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Land Grant Act, offering free land to the states which they could then *sell* to institutions of higher learning where, "the leading object shall be, . . . to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts. . .in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life." Summary: PSU is not "the government" you keep whining about, has never been "the government," and Bill Verity in the Center for Academic Computing is not an "agent" for "the government." "The government" does not own the computing machinery used here, and has no part in running any such machinery. Penn State has *exactly* the same legal status as Temple University and The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt). Would you claim the same points for *those* institutions? As an aside, I would suggest that you take a look at a recent civil case in which Temple University successfully defended its right to deny the KKK access to one of its auditoriums, on the grounds that the auditorium was a "limited resource," and that the Temple student body would be more interested in seeing some other group use the facility. Another aspect of the case was the fact that payment for services of facilities was involved, unlike, say, most public high school gymnasiums. Not *directly* applicable, but it *is* a case where an institution which received federal and state funding, exactly as PSU does, was justified legally in denying use of its facilities based entirely upon the opinions held by some person or group wishing to use those facilities. Now, I don't have the case right in front of me, so you may wish to look it up yourself. If your position has any merit whatsoever, it is because PSU receives some amount of State funding, and some federal grants (the amount and percentage of the total budget filled by those funds are unimportant, the critical factor here is that PSU gets *some* "government" money, as opposed to "no" "government" money). This acceptance of such funding requires PSU to adhere to federal and state anti-discrimination laws, specifically, "The Pennsylvania State University, in compliance with federal and state laws and regulations governing affermative action and nondiscrimination, does not discriminate in the recruitment, admission, and employment of students, faculty and staff in the operation of any of its educational programs and activities as defined by law. Accordingly, nothing in any publication produced by The Pennsylvania State University should be viewed as directly or indirectly expressing any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to race, religion, color, or national origin; or to handicap, age, sex, or status as a disabled or Vietnam-era veteran, except as provided by law." Note that this decription does not include sexual orientation among prohibited reasons for discrimination--this is due to the fact that PSU copies the federal requirement to the letter, and the federal requirement does not yet include such language. PSU covers sexual orientation under its "Acts of Intolerance" policy, which states that acts of intolerance towards clearly identifiable groups or the act of inciting such intolerance is reason for disciplinary action towards responsible individuals. You can argue about whether such a policy is constitutionally valid, but that's a seperate point. The important fact here is that you have consistently missed the point. If you had based your arguments upon the fact that PSU receives federal funding, and thus must not violate federal non-discrimination policies, I might feel some need to respond to them. As it is, with your repetitive insistance that PSU is "the government" and that Bill Verity is an agent of "the government," both of which are clearly incorrect facts, you just come off looking quite ignorant, as if you were continuing to argue just for the sake of argument, and for the attention you get from such a discussion. In short, please stop wasting bandwidth on subjects which you know nothing about. You stated your opinion quite a while ago. If I'm not mistaken, it goes something like, "Boy, I really hate what I see as censorship as expressed in the suspension of James Whitehead's account by Bill Verity, and I really think that stinks." Ok, fine. We've heard it. You've expressed your opinion. Thank you. Now kindly shut up, at least in this group. You're not costing me a cent, but somebody is footing the bill for the continuation of this bootless discussion. If you really, really feel the burning need to continue this discussion, and have huge amounts of spare time available, with just *nothing* else to do, at least take to alt.flame, ok? There, I'm all ranted out. Richard C. Hoffman Disclaimer: I am not in any way an official or unofficial representitive of The Pennsylvania State University, and any policies or opinions presented here do not necessarily represent official PSU positions. I just live here. And probably not for long, either.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/13/89)
In article <14636@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should > be able to get anything published in the state run university > supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? Absolutely. Doubtless the reason that the Revolutionary government of the U.S. didn't have a government operated newspaper. > And Patrick, notice how *short* this article is. A bumper sticker is even shorter -- that must mean it's even more profound. :-) -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Abandon all hopes of utopia -- there are people involved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (04/14/89)
In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: >In article <1216@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: >>Oh, you mean Mr. Verity had a group of campus policemen blackjack this fool >>down at Campus Police headquarters in a windowless room? [...etc...] > >No, he simply unlawfully and unconstitutionally refused to allow him to >participate in a forum maintained on government owned computing machinery >at a government owned facility on the basis of a speech that he made. >... our government has no authority to squelch discussion of ideas ... > >>Mr. Verity simply >>enforced Penn State's right not to pay for someone's odious behavior. > > ... Odious or not ... the government cannot bar someone from making a speech. We have a real dilemma here. On the one hand, as Townson points out well (and repeatedly (-:) the government of the United States or of the individual states cannot stop people from saying whatever they want (subject to certain restrictions, according to some interpretors of the Constitution, see, e.g., an interesting debate on this in a recent issue of The Atlantic Monthly). However, Townson continues... >Don't confuse the owner of the computer which Mr. Verity supervises with the >owner of the computer in your home or mine; or the computer at AT&T or >General Motors. They are privately owned. The PSU computer is owned by >the government, and routinely made available to qualified members of the >public. The government has to find some other legitimate reason to stop >the use of the machine. Speech alone won't cut it. But wait! The government is us; should it (we) pay for the propagation of "hate literature?" That is, the taxpayers of Pennsylvania are paying for people to use this forum. My basic concern here is that usenet is a new form of "speech", and rather than interpreting the laws rigorously in all instances, one should consider what is in the best interests on the public. I don't want to pay for the propagation of hate literature; on the other hand, I don't want to see the government, or any part of it, become an editor or censor, because I want to have the right to say what I want to say as well. However, in this instance, the government (Penn State) is operating as a publishing agent/publisher of the hate literature by Mr. Whitehead. When we set up part of the government as a publisher, then we have to grant to that government the right to * act * as a publisher, and to edit or just to determine what it will publish. This is a tricky issue--there are lines to be drawn. Certainly Mr. Verity went too far in stopping Mr. Whitehead from ever "submitting articles to be published;" he should simply refuse specific articles, if he wants to act as a discerning "publisher." Unfortunately, this would mean reading every article which is posted. >>Because the vast majority of people who own and pay for USENET machines don't >>want (a) odious postings of this magnitude (b) in newsgroups where they >>aren't welcome. >... The way to avoid an 'odious posting of >this magnitude' is to not make it available for readers on your machine. But isn't this exactly what you don't approve of? Here you are asking the sysadmins to act as editors/censors/publishers, which you are claiming they cannot do. Or are you agreeing with my point, that the government (assuming a State-owned machine on which you are making postings available) should indeed act as an editor when it is serving as one? >Where the GOVERNMENT; i.e. in the issue at hand, Pennsylvania State >University and its employee Verity are concerned, freedom of speech does >mean the right to say anything, anywhere, and anytime, when using government >facilities which have historically been defined as a forum. > >Neither my living room, nor yours is a forum. Neither my living room, nor >yours is a government owned place. Neither you or I, or any private >individual reading this message is obliged to assist someone else make a >'free speech'. The government is not obliged to help with it either, but ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >when by wilfull action or default a forum exists under the auspices of the >government, then the government cannot stop the forum merely because of >the speech. What the government can do, and what the government should are separate issues. On the one hand, you admit that the government (we, the people) should not help propagate hate literature, but then say that it cannot NOT help do so. To repeat my point, the government is providing a forum, and paying for it, and it is reasonable to suggest that perhaps the govern- ment should not pay for the publishing of certain things. -Raymond Shaw raymond@psych.toronto.edu
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/14/89)
In article <14636@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should >be able to get anything published in the state run university >supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? Nope, not the same thing. Newspapers have editors; Usenet does not. When a writer submits something to a newspaper, he expects it to be edited by the person in charge of doing so. Spelling and grammar will be corrected. The article may be a bit too long and have to have a few paragraphs cut out. The computer analogy to the newspaper would be a moderated news group. Of course if the campus newspaper at the state run university always, or rather consistently squelched one line of thinking by some writers and always or rather consistently promoted and gave a great deal of print to the opposing ideas of others, then probably a court could be convinced to rule in the matter. No prior permission is required to post a message in Usenet, other than the administrative type; i.e. setting up an account, paying necessary fees to the school, etc. Once Usenet is available to you, you post away, with no one to preview/review your article until after it has been published. Quite a difference from newspapers. A better analogy would be the bulletin board in the Student Union Building. Anyone walks up and tacks up a notice. There is no advance editing of what appears there. Then one day the Building Manager notices there is not a single inch of spare room on the board, and that new notices have been tacked right on top of old out of date ones. The board really looks crappy. He cleans the whole board off and puts up a sign which says all notices must be turned in to so-and-so, who will mark them 'approved' with a date and put them up, and take them down two weeks later. Is he committing censorship? No, he isn't; not unless the person in charge of stamping the announcements and putting them up refuses to post notices about one student organization while giving lots of space to some other group. He can keep non-university related notices from being posted. He can keep 'apartment for rent' notices out of the section intended for 'employment opportunities'; but he cannot use purely speech to decide the validity of a posting. He cannot pick and choose among groups on campus based on his own like or dislike of their philosophy and purpose. In this sense, the bulletin board is like a forum; all have historically been permitted to make their announcements there, and all qualified persons (some affinity with the university) and qualified announcements (some news about activities at the university) must be accomodated. Of course, he can always take the entire bulletin board down, claiming it causes too much congestion in the hallway when people stop to read it. He can move the entire board somewhere else, or put it all behind locked glass windows to insure that you *must* give him your announcement first. There is frequently confusion between censorship by the government, which is unconstitutional, and the exercise of Administrative Convenience, which has always been held to be quite legal. Newspapers historically have had editors; bulletin boards historically have not had editors. The former is not usually considered a forum, but the latter is. The parallel to Usenet would be the random posting bulletin board rather than a newspaper. >And Patrick, notice how *short* this article is. Yes, I noticed. Did you notice how *thoughtful* my article was? > ``Parents who have children, have children who have children'' >richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV Did you ever notice how my .signature simply gives addresses to reach me and does not slip another little mini-editorial to the tired reader in the process? -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (04/14/89)
In article <1208@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <14636@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should >> be able to get anything published in the state run university >> supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? > >Absolutely. Ugh. Not sure I'd want you as editor for any mag >I'd< put out..... ......but you'd be the hack writer's dream.........
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/14/89)
In article <14636@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should > be able to get anything published in the state run university > supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? The two situations are not analogous. A more proper analogy would be someone given a regular column on the paper, then fired from the staff for something he had written. An even better analogy would be if the U had designated an area of the commons as a speechmaking area, and then barred Student X from further speeches for making a speech the administration disliked. Jeff Daiell The closer April 15th gets, the better The Libertarian Party looks. -- Salve lucrum!
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/14/89)
Universities, as private institutions, have the legal right to restrict speech on their facilities. However, as universities, there is an expectation (perhaps a duty) that they will uphold the principles of freedom of expression to a *greater* degree than the government, not a lesser one. Universities must lead the way in freedom of expression, not follow the dictates of public opinion on what is offensive. One might even argue that when one enters the contractual relationship with a university known as attendance, there is an implicit belief, dating back from a tradition of many years at universities, that you will not be censured there, or told what to say or read, simply because of the contents of your communication. This is a debatable point, of course. Only tenured faculty have this explicitly laid out. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/14/89)
In article <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu#, raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: # In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us# patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: # #Don't confuse the owner of the computer which Mr. Verity supervises with the # #owner of the computer in your home or mine; or the computer at AT&T or # #General Motors. They are privately owned. The PSU computer is owned by # #the government, and routinely made available to qualified members of the # #public. The government has to find some other legitimate reason to stop # #the use of the machine. Speech alone won't cut it. # # But wait! The government is us; should it (we) pay for # the propagation of "hate literature?" That is, the taxpayers of Pennsylvania # are paying for people to use this forum. That's why we have the Bill of Rights -- to prevent the majority from imposing its viewpoint on the minority. Why can't "we" (the government) pass laws to impose a particular religious or anti-religious belief on others? Why can't "we" pass laws to arbitrarily execute "bad groups" (Jews, blacks, etc.) without trial or criminal actions? Why can't "we" pass laws allowing random searches of people's homes? The Bill of Rights was intended not just as a defense of individual rights from abuse by an undemocratic government, but also as a defense of individual rights from a government too democratic. If the government is going to provide any sort of forum for discussion, it needs to provide it on an equal basis to ALL parties -- no matter how repugnant the content. If they don't want to do it, they shouldn't provide such a forum. You may recall a while back one of the Mid-West cities where a white supremacist group was taking advantage of a "public access" cable channel, and a number of liberals in town were trying to get these scum taken off the air, without having to give up "public access" for everyone else. Sorry, guys. The government is a monopoly. Government-funded organizations, even if not a monopoly directly (universities, for example), are provided an unfair advantage since they receive money from ALL the people. Such organizations must provide ALL parties an equal opportunity. As offensive as such a concept is to liberals, it IS the law of the land. # My basic concern here is that usenet is a new form of "speech", and rather # than interpreting the laws rigorously in all instances, one should consider # what is in the best interests on the public. I don't want to pay for the # propagation of hate literature; on the other hand, I don't want to see the # government, or any part of it, become an editor or censor, because I want to # have the right to say what I want to say as well. Then get the government completely out of it. I don't like paying for hatred either -- and the government must inevitably pay for dissemination of hatred, or get out of the public forum business. (That includes universities, where academic freedom is the guise for disseminating materials and ideas that promote race hatred and class hatred). # What the government can do, and what the government should are separate # issues. On the one hand, you admit that the government (we, the people) # should not help propagate hate literature, but then say that it cannot # NOT help do so. To repeat my point, the government is providing a forum, # and paying for it, and it is reasonable to suggest that perhaps the govern- # ment should not pay for the publishing of certain things. # # -Raymond Shaw Care to tell me how that is distinguished from censorship? -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (04/15/89)
In article <1208@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <14636@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should >> be able to get anything published in the state run university >> supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? > >Absolutely. Absolutely not. It's called editorial policy. Editors decide what is published in a newspaper, not the university. If the university administration decides, then that is censorship; if it is a government owned university, then that is gov't censorship. -Ray Shaw ------ disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; these are my opinions.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/17/89)
In article <1576@blake.acs.washington.edu#, gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: # In article <1208@optilink.UUCP# cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #In article <14636@gryphon.COM#, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: # ## So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should # ## be able to get anything published in the state run university # ## supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? # # # #Absolutely. # # Ugh. Not sure I'd want you as editor for any mag #I'd< put out..... # # ......but you'd be the hack writer's dream......... I'm not saying that such a magazine would be particuarly worthwhile to read, but there is a fundamental problem when we propose to have the government, an intrinsic monopoly, engage in publishing. Either we give everyone equal access, or we allow the government to decide what ideas should be subsidized, and which should not. Perhaps the government doesn't belong in this business? -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/17/89)
In article <1989Apr14.183516.27708@utpsych.toronto.edu#, raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: # In article <1208@optilink.UUCP# cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #In article <14636@gryphon.COM#, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: # ## So by this reasoning, any student at a State run university should # ## be able to get anything published in the state run university # ## supported school newspaper, and if they can't it's censorship ? # # # #Absolutely. # # Absolutely not. It's called editorial policy. Editors decide what is # published in a newspaper, not the university. # # If the university administration decides, then that is censorship; # if it is a government owned university, then that is gov't censorship. # # -Ray Shaw But someone who works for the university administration (the editor) decides, and it isn't censorship? No, as long as a government agency or its employees decides what goes in, and what doesn't, it's censor- ship. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (04/17/89)
In article <1219@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >But someone who works for the university administration (the editor) >decides, and it isn't censorship? No, as long as a government agency >or its employees decides what goes in, and what doesn't, it's censor- >ship. No. Way. There is no prior restraint. There is no bar to starting up alternate voices. There are established standards. And as long as the editor follows them, there isn't any "censorship". Established practices, etc. By this definition, any papers published by government agencies that are edited, such as US Geological Survey Research papers, California Division of Mines Geology maps are censored items. I find that hard to believe.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/17/89)
In article <1607@blake.acs.washington.edu>, gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: > In article <1219@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >But someone who works for the university administration (the editor) > >decides, and it isn't censorship? No, as long as a government agency > >or its employees decides what goes in, and what doesn't, it's censor- > >ship. > > No. Way. > > There is no prior restraint. There is no bar to starting up alternate > voices. There are established standards. And as long as the editor follows If the government gives away a student newspaper, and provides the money to operate the student newspaper, while other newspapers aimed at the same audience receive no government funding, is definitely an obstacle, if not a bar, to starting up alternative voices. > them, there isn't any "censorship". Established practices, etc. I might agree that editorial standards, as long as they are used in a consistent and fair manner, might be acceptable -- but deciding that a certain class of political remarks is unacceptable, while allowing all others, is not. > By this definition, any papers published by government agencies that > are edited, such as US Geological Survey Research papers, California Division > of Mines Geology maps are censored items. I find that hard to believe. If papers of a political nature were regularly carried, yet papers advocating one particular political view were regularly refused, this would be censorship. -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) (04/17/89)
In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us< patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
<And you come back, not with examples of where the ACLU did in fact agree
<that speech under some circumstances is illegal, but instead, talking about
<my understanding of the constitution! As a matter of fact, I can think of
<a few examples of 'illegal speech'; speech which receives no constitutional
<protection -- but I am sure the ACLU would disagree with me on that point.
Ok, what _do_ you consider as an example of illegal speech?
<--
<Patrick Townson
--
********************** 'It reads: The Grail is in Castle AARRGH!'
* dbell@maths.tcd.ie * 'Oooooohhhhhhh!'
* belld@vax1.tcd.ie * 'No, it definitely says AARRGH!...'
********************** Monty Python & the Holy GrailRWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (04/18/89)
In <1215@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >If the government is going to provide any sort of forum for discussion, >it needs to provide it on an equal basis to ALL parties -- no matter >how repugnant the content. Again, what's this government shit? 'Partially supported by public funds' does not mean 'co-opted by Big Brother,' however much you want it to mean that. C'mon, the government doesn't, legally speaking, even have a controlling interest in PSU. PSU is _not_ the government. The USEnet is _not_ a public forum. Farmers are not the government, although they're partially federally subsidized. Duh. >If they don't want to do it, they shouldn't >provide such a forum. You may recall a while back one of the Mid-West >cities where a white supremacist group was taking advantage of a >"public access" cable channel, and a number of liberals in town were >trying to get these scum taken off the air, without having to give >up "public access" for everyone else. So what's this have to do with anything? fc
raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) (04/18/89)
In article <1215@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu#, raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes: ># But wait! The government is us; should it (we) pay for ># the propagation of "hate literature?" That is, the taxpayers of Pennsylvania ># are paying for people to use this forum. > ># My basic concern here is that usenet is a new form of "speech", and rather ># than interpreting the laws rigorously in all instances, one should consider ># what is in the best interests on the public. I don't want to pay for the ># propagation of hate literature; on the other hand, I don't want to see the ># government, or any part of it, become an editor or censor, because I want to ># have the right to say what I want to say as well. > >Then get the government completely out of it. I don't like paying >for hatred either -- and the government must inevitably pay for >dissemination of hatred, or get out of the public forum business. >(That includes universities, where academic freedom is the guise >for disseminating materials and ideas that promote race hatred and >class hatred). > ># What the government can do, and what the government should are separate ># issues. On the one hand, you admit that the government (we, the people) ># should not help propagate hate literature, but then say that it cannot ># NOT help do so. To repeat my point, the government is providing a forum, ># and paying for it, and it is reasonable to suggest that perhaps the govern- ># ment should not pay for the publishing of certain things. ># ># -Raymond Shaw > >Care to tell me how that is distinguished from censorship? > Sure, it's simple: a publisher does not censor a newspaper he publishes, the government does so. A censor does not censor what he publishes. If a government says, YOU may publish this, but not that, then this is censorship. If a publisher says to the printer or editor, I'll not publish this but I will publish that, then this reflects the publisher's choice. Two things: 1. someone else on this issue said that this dilemma is why the revolutionary government of the US didn't publish a newspaper; and 2. a better analogy for usenet is a bulletin board in a Student Union Building than a newspaper. I agree with both of these: that is, the government should not publish, because then whoever disagrees with the editorial/publishing policy (which every paper must have; else every loser who thinks he/she can write will claim censorship! if s/he isn't published) will claim censorship; and finally, that if a government body doesn't like what gets posted to a bulletin board, then it must either ignore this problem completely or stop everyone from using it at that facility. ok? -Raymond Shaw raymond@psych.utoronto.edu
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (04/18/89)
In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <1216@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes: > >Oh, you mean Mr. Verity had a group of campus policemen blackjack this fool > >down at Campus Police headquarters in a windowless room? Or did Mr. Verity > >simply have the Penn State army shoot him? Perhaps he let him off easy, and > >just locked the toad in his dorm room and announced that anyone talking with > >him would be arrested? > >--> GET A CLUE: <-- Governments have powers to > >prevent any discussion of ideas, any time, anywhere. > Not the United States government, A goof on my part: as I made clear further down, I intended to say that governments have the physical power to do that, through the means specified in my first paragraph. The US Government does not (in theory) give itself the authority to do that. Penn State University is NOT simply an arm of the government, and is not obligated to give out computer accounts for any purpose other than educating computer students. They certainly did not act in any way comparable to the South African government, as Patrick Townson asserted they did. Come back and complain when Pennsylvania refuses to issue him a driver's license because of his USENET articles. And as far as the difference between Penn State's computers and my own -- James Whitehead DID use my computer, and most particularly my modem, thanks to the nature of USENET, and he made it quite clear that he knew that his articles were propagated to "thousands of sites" and that he fully intended to jam thousands of modems and disk drives with endless re-dissections of his crap. That was the point of my Uzi analogy, to demonstrate the absurdity of denying causality. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Healed Head BAD, Bleeding Head GOOD!
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) (04/19/89)
In article <1225@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >In article <1607@blake.acs.washington.edu>, gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: >> In article <1219@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >But someone who works for the university administration (the editor) >> >decides, and it isn't censorship? No, as long as a government agency >> >or its employees decides what goes in, and what doesn't, it's censor- >> >ship. >> >> No. Way. >> >> There is no prior restraint. There is no bar to starting up alternate >> voices. There are established standards. And as long as the editor follows > >If the government gives away a student newspaper, and provides the money >to operate the student newspaper, while other newspapers aimed at the >same audience receive no government funding, is definitely an obstacle, >if not a bar, to starting up alternative voices. Granted, IF there is no way for startup papers to get money from the university. On the campuses I've been on, there have been ways to do so that are relatively free of politicking. >> them, there isn't any "censorship". Established practices, etc. > >I might agree that editorial standards, as long as they are used in >a consistent and fair manner, might be acceptable -- but deciding >that a certain class of political remarks is unacceptable, while >allowing all others, is not. I can agree there. However, if taken far enough, this arguement would take a college newspaper as a common carrier, legally, and I'm not quite sure that's supportable. Certainly, a paper can have a leftist editor and staff, with corresponding editorial and opinion page matter; as individuals, they should have the ability to exercise their right to speak. By the same token, this leftist staff should not (and usally doesn't) refuse to run well written letters opinion with a rightist view. However, this principle should not force a staff to run poorly written, poorly thought out pieces just to "balance" the paper. Conversely, this should apply to a rightist staff where a poorly written leftist article is concerned. >> By this definition, any papers published by government agencies that >If papers of a political nature were regularly carried, yet papers >advocating one particular political view were regularly refused, this >would be censorship. Agreed.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/21/89)
In article <8251@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > When 911 service was being installed > in Chicago ... one of the stated advantages was that > emergency personnel would > see a print out with the telephone number and address where the call was > being placed.The old system did not provide this informaation ... > > The ALCU *sued to keep 911 out of Chicago*, using as the basis for their > argument, rightly rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court, that people > had the right to speak anonymously with emergency service providers if > they wanted to do so, and thus, 911 'invaded their privacy and chilled > their free speech.' Aside from the fact that one *should* have the right to anonymity -- rather than a presumption of guilt which the referenced posting seems to imply -- there is a very *pragmatic* reason to oppose the phone number and address of a caller to 911 being automatically being made available to the agency being called. A lot of people are scared of retaliation for reporting a crime. If they can report one anonymously, tho, they would be more willing to. Fear that a perpetrator will somehow discover their identity, however, will indeed 'chill' their civic- mindedness. > > The ACLU has argued that the Federal Communications Commission should be > abolished -- even its technical standards operations. They say everyone > should have to the right to own a radio transmitter if they so choose, tune > it wherever they choose, broadcast whatever they want to broadcast and > be unrestricted in the power output. And may the best man be heard above > the rest. There is considerable evidence that the Federal Censorship Commission was a supply with no demand -- demand in the sense of a real need -- that things were working smoothly, and conflicts, when they arose, being resolved smoothly. What the FCC has tended to do is to concentrate broadcast resources in the hands of Big Business, discouraging competition. The semi-deregulation of recent years has been of tremendous help in providing more variety. I'm surprised, and gratified, that the ACLU would actually favor abolishing a Federal bureaucracy. Can we get them to extend that to some others -- such as the IRS? > > The example which comes immediatly to mind with technical trade secrets > ( I use that phrase for lack of a better term coming to mind) was the 1970 > case "Pacific Telephone vrs. Ramparts Magazine". Ramparts announced in > one issue that in the next issue they would print the algorythm, or > mathematical formula for creating *valid* (acceptable to the computer) > telephone credit card billing numbers. > > AT&T, and their telco subsidiaries were incensed, and went to court to get > an order to *completely bar the publication* of this information. They were > successful at the last minute (the issue had already been printed and > distribution was underway) in barring such speech, resulting in the court > ordering distribution be halted and all issues collected back up and > destroyed. > > And who do you think defended Ramparts Magazine? Who else. And the > arguments presented? '....a dangerous precedent...chilling effect on > free speech...they can't be stopped from publishing their magazine...' > But the court ruled indeed, there were valid reasons not only for > punishing speech after the fact, but banning it from being made in the > first place under some circumstances. As much as I despised Ramparts Magazine, I tend to agree with the ACLU on this one, too. Look at what else was suppressed along with the formula (this is *not* an indication of approval of that other material! Ramparts was both pro-collectivist and elitist, and I once wrote them a letter pointing out that they were loaded with, uh, digestive system byproduct). I think a more appropriate course of action would have been a civil suit. The ACLU is far from perfect. They fought for years against the 2nd Amendment, they tried to force that young Russian child to go back to Russia, they won't fight jury conscription, they don't seem to care enough about letting "third" parties on the ballot, and they seem more willing to defend zanies than non- zanies with equally pressing problems. But they do a lot of very valuable work, and I hate to think what shape the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments would be in without them. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/21/89)
In article <555@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: > >"The Congress shall make no law ...." > >Doesn't say anything about any other government agency or individual. The rules and regulations of government agencies are considered to be the law. The establishment of the agency by Congress or the Executive is sufficient to put the 'force of law' behind the rules of the agency. Do you honestly believe there is an actual law in the United States Code somewhere validating every single rule of the Internal Revenue Service? Do you believe you could avoid the regulations of the IRS by claiming there is no actual law on the books? >What do you think most "contempt of court" charges are all about? Someone >said something the judge didn't like. >If you really think we have "Free Speech" tell a judge in court, "I feel >this court is a joke and the biggest laugh is behind the bench." Even >if it's true you feel that way, you'll get to see a jail cell. This could be another example of the types of illegal speech I was requested to post yesterday. The right of the public and the government to an unbiased forum, conducted with decorum for the purpose of hearing and ajudicating grievances with each other is superior to the right of 'free speech' in that place and at that time. Neither does your right to free speech give you the authority to lie under oath at any time. And just as you may not address an officer of the court in a disrespectful manner, you may not address members of Congress in a disprepectful manner while that body is in session. Disrepect not only includes acts of commission (lies, laughter, mocking) but acts of omission as well (failure to appear when requested). That is what Contempt of Congress is all about, and that is a pretty heavy rap also. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/21/89)
In article <555@cvman.UUCP#, gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes:
#
# "The Congress shall make no law ...."
#
# Doesn't say anything about any other government agency or individual.
# What do you think most "contempt of court" charges are all about? Someone
# said something the judge didn't like.
See the Fourteenth Amendment.
# If you really think we have "Free Speech" tell a judge in court, "I feel
# this court is a joke and the biggest laugh is behind the bench." Even
# if it's true you feel that way, you'll get to see a jail cell.
#
# / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com
Just because it's true, doesn't make it right. I've long been amazed
at the power a judge has to find someone in "contempt of court". My
brother, when still a juvenile, had to go before a judge on a traffic
ticket. The judge threatened to find him in contempt of court because
his shirt wasn't tucked in.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/22/89)
In article <8257@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <555@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: > > > >"The Congress shall make no law ...." > > > >Doesn't say anything about any other government agency or individual. > > The rules and regulations of government agencies are considered to be the > law. The establishment of the agency by Congress or the Executive is > sufficient to put the 'force of law' behind the rules of the agency. Do > you honestly believe there is an actual law in the United States Code > somewhere validating every single rule of the Internal Revenue Service? > Do you believe you could avoid the regulations of the IRS by claiming > there is no actual law on the books? Perhaps not. But there are times when the implementation of a basic law is so outrageous that redress is possible. Case in point: some time back, Congress passed a law prohibiting "frivolous" tax returns -- their word for returns citing the Federal Constitution as a reason for not paying tribute money to the Fedscists. A woman filed a return PROPERLY FILLED OUT and WITH A CHECK FOR THE AMOUNT REQUIRED. She included in the envelope a letter asking how much of her tax money went to the military. Despite the fact that her tax form was properly completed, and the required funds enclosed, the Income Robbery Syndicate fined her for filing a frivolous return. The ACLU took her case and she won, and Congress has since rewritten the law to rein in the more repressive tendencies of the IRS in this particular area. > >What do you think most "contempt of court" charges are all about? Someone > >said something the judge didn't like. > >If you really think we have "Free Speech" tell a judge in court, "I feel > >this court is a joke and the biggest laugh is behind the bench." Even > >if it's true you feel that way, you'll get to see a jail cell. > > > This could be another example of the types of illegal speech I was > requested to post yesterday. The right of the public and the government > to an unbiased forum, conducted with decorum for the purpose of hearing > and ajudicating grievances with each other is superior to the right of > 'free speech' in that place and at that time. Contempt of course can be abused incredibly. There have been cases where judges cited county commissioners for refusing to raise judges' pay, or refusing to increase a court system's operating budget. And don't forget some of the bizarre contempt rulings by Judge Hoffman during the Chicago 7 trial -- rulings so, uh, contemptible, that even so rightwingers were scandalized. And there was recently a judge citing attorneys for contempt for not addressing each other as "Doctor". And while having a terminal degree brings with it, in academia, the privilege of being so addressed, I think that ruling was proposterous. > > Neither does your right to free speech give you the authority to lie under > oath at any time. And just as you may not address an officer of the court > in a disrespectful manner, you may not address members of Congress in a > disprepectful manner while that body is in session. Disrepect not only > includes acts of commission (lies, laughter, mocking) but acts of omission > as well (failure to appear when requested). It should be noted that nowhere in the Federal Constitution is Congress given subpoena authority. Indeed, nowhere in the Constitution is the prosecution in a Federal case given such authority -- and remember, the whole basis of American political philosophy is that Government has *only* those privileges specifically granted it. But let's get back to the case at Penn State. A forum was set up, open to a certain class of students. One member of that class was apparently barred from that forum solely because of the content of his speech. The argument originally was: is that censorship? If so, is it permissible? Well -- yes and no! For Texas Independence, Jeff Daiell -- "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/23/89)
In article <3941@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Perhaps not. But there are times when the implementation of a basic >law is so outrageous that redress is possible. Case in point: some >time back, Congress passed a law prohibiting "frivolous" tax returns -- >their word for returns citing the Federal Constitution as a reason >for not paying tribute money to the Fedscists. A woman filed a >return PROPERLY FILLED OUT and WITH A CHECK FOR THE AMOUNT REQUIRED. >She included in the envelope a letter asking how much of her >tax money went to the military. Despite the fact that her tax form >was properly completed, and the required funds enclosed, the Income >Robbery Syndicate fined her for filing a frivolous return. The >ACLU took her case and she won, and Congress has since rewritten >the law to rein in the more repressive tendencies of the IRS in this >particular area. Generally, your tax return is not just the sheet of paper you sign and staple your check on, but all the other enclosures in the envelope, by reference thereto. A tax return is supposed to contain nothing but the necessary facts required to calculate the amount of tax payment and/or credit. A letter to the President enclosed with your tax return thanking him for the good work he is doing could constitute a 'frivolous' return. Friviolity, it seems, is *anything* not directly related to the computation of taxes and making settlement for same with your payment. I quite agree the IRS occassionlly gets very zealous in the enforcement of its rules. But since the IRS has nothing to do with the allocation of the money thus collected, the lady's questions and comments probably should have been directed to someone at the Pentagon rather than someone at the IRS. >Contempt of course can be abused incredibly. There have been cases >where judges cited county commissioners for refusing to raise >judges' pay, or refusing to increase a court system's operating >budget. And don't forget some of the bizarre contempt rulings >by Judge Hoffman during the Chicago 7 trial -- rulings so, uh, >contemptible, that even so rightwingers were scandalized. > >And there was recently a judge citing attorneys for contempt for >not addressing each other as "Doctor". And while having a >terminal degree brings with it, in academia, the privilege of >being so addressed, I think that ruling was proposterous. Contempt charges are abused a great deal. Depends on the level of the court and various other circumstances as to how extreme it can be. In the Circuit Court of Cook County and its branches (Chicago and some suburbs) there are three sources of authority. The authority of the judges is unlimited *only* in matters related to the detirmination of facts in cases before them. They have no control over the other two parts of the system, namely the administration of the complex of buildings and grounds, or the administration of the Cook County Jail. In fact the judges report to their supervisor, the Chief Judge, and the Chief Judge's authority is equal to, but not greater than the authority of the Court Aministrator and the Jail Superintendent. If they tried to bring contempt charges against an attorney or some other court employee, it would only be after consultation with their supervisor. Their judgment is considered the final word on the finding of facts, but in other matters no one cares what they think or want. An attorney can be found in contempt for something directly related to the trial going on, but cannot be (at least here) found in contempt for non-trial matters. If an attorney's decorum is called into question, the matter is referred to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee, which is an administrative function of the Illinois Supreme Court. Judges, on the other hand are first counseled by their supervisor, and then before a committee at the Illinois Supreme Court if discipline in some non-criminal matter relating to the judge's behavior is required. The Admininstrative Office and the Cook County Jail have their own rules and regulations and they could care less what some local judge likes or does not like. On the occassions when a judge has raised cain with the jail personnel for taking too long to bring inmates over for trial or doing something else he did not like, they go back and complain about him instead. > "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those > who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." > I am in one hundred percent agreement! -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/24/89)
In article <8271@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > > > Generally, your tax return is not just the sheet of paper you sign and > staple your check on, but all the other enclosures in the envelope, by > reference thereto. A tax return is supposed to contain nothing but the > necessary facts required to calculate the amount of tax payment and/or > credit. A letter to the President enclosed with your tax return thanking > him for the good work he is doing could constitute a 'frivolous' return. > Friviolity, it seems, is *anything* not directly related to the computation > of taxes and making settlement for same with your payment. > > I quite agree the IRS occassionlly gets very zealous in the enforcement of > its rules. But since the IRS has nothing to do with the allocation of the > money thus collected, the lady's questions and comments probably should have > been directed to someone at the Pentagon rather than someone at the IRS. Whoa! Let me see if I understand it correctly. You have no problem with the IRS -- an administrative agency -- playing judge and jury and fining this woman for asking a civil question? I hope I'm misinterpreting things. How would you have liked it, back when we had both the FAA and the CAB, if you had written to one and that agency decided the letter should have gone to the other -- and fined *you* big bucks? > Contempt charges are abused a great deal. Depends on the level of the > court and various other circumstances as to how extreme it can be. > In the Circuit Court of Cook County and its branches (Chicago and > some suburbs) there are three sources of authority. The authority of > the judges is unlimited *only* in matters related to the detirmination > of facts in cases before them. Then you're lucky. In most places, judges are considered to have *much* broader authority -- dangerously broader, IMHO. Anyway, back to the concept at heart: the only things that should be illegal are those things that violate the rights of others. Anything else is none of the Government's flippin' business. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality." -- Dante
dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) (04/24/89)
In article <8251@chinet.chi.il.us} patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: }And who do you think defended Ramparts Magazine? Who else. And the }arguments presented? '....a dangerous precedent...chilling effect on }free speech...they can't be stopped from publishing their magazine...' }But the court ruled indeed, there were valid reasons not only for }punishing speech after the fact, but banning it from being made in the }first place under some circumstances. What happened with Ramparts magazine? Sounds like the ACLU is well intentioned but very inflexible, IMHO. -- ********************** 'It reads: The Grail is in Castle AARRGH!' * dbell@maths.tcd.ie * 'Oooooohhhhhhh!' * belld@vax1.tcd.ie * 'No, it definitely says AARRGH!...' ********************** Monty Python & the Holy Grail
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (04/26/89)
In article <767@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) writes: > What happened with Ramparts magazine? Sounds like the ACLU is >well intentioned but very inflexible, IMHO. I think Ramparts is still around, published in the San Fransisco area, or maybe southern California. 'Rampart' is a word of French origin which is a rather archaic term used by the military of two hundred years ago. It is an embankment of earth with a wall around it, serving as a watching post and place to hide from enemy fire. Roughly translated from its French usage into English it would be 'a place to watch and guard the fort'. The only use of the word I have ever seen, other than as the title to that magazine is in the fourth line of the first stanza of Francis Scott Key's poem, 'The Star Spangled Banner' -- (3) Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, (4) O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? The last issue I saw of the magazine, a few years ago, was considerably toned down from what they used to publish during the Viet Nam era. My first aquaintence with the magazine was around 1968, and at last look, it had, uh, 'matured', let's say. Like yourself, I think the ACLU means well, but they are horribly naive and misguided at times. I am convinced they do believe anarchy is required in America. The fact that an organization like ACLU, which devotes it time and effort to protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States -- ** as they interpret that precious document ** comes under the hellfire and damnation that they do says more about the organization than it does about the constitution they seek to preserve. Yes, they are very inflexible at times. They are great at winning battles while losing larger wars. They seem to go out of their way at times to alienate people who could help them and who share many, if not all goals in common. It gets pretty dangerous playing the game called 'What The Founder Fathers Intended When They Wrote The Constitution/Bill of Rights'. I don't really know, but at least I make no claims of some superior knowledge on the matter. But I really don't think in their wildest reveries they intended to see their documents misused to cover every bizarre social illness in an America two centuries later, as the ACLU seems to imply. I think the ACLU will be one main reason why in the next fifty to seventy five years the American public is going to call a Constitutional Convention and angrily demand that large parts of the Bill of Rights be abolished. Very sad and frightening, but very likely, I think. Large numbers of people will get so tired of having their noses rubbed in the mess made by liberal court decisions they will finally get a belly full of it all and say "If *that* is what the Constitution is about; if *that* is what it means, then we don't want any. Revoke it all." And that is how you win battles while losing larger wars. We train dogs to go to the bathroom in an acceptable way by rubbing their noses in their mess. I think ACLU lawyers and federal judges should have their noses rubbed in their messes also. Let them all live in the inner city areas of Chicago, New York and El Lay. Let them get mugged and raped a few times; maybe have their homes burglarized by someone on a drug binge. Then let's all sit down again in a month or two, and I will try to listen patiently once again while they tell me about civil liberties for animals who out of charity are referred to as 'human beings'. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/27/89)
In article <8301@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > .. I think the ACLU means well, but they are horribly naive > and misguided at times. I am convinced they do believe anarchy is required > in America. Actually, many, if not most, ACLUers are downright authoritarian when it comes to economic freedom. And for many years the ACLU was pro-gun control, scarcely an anarchistic position. > The fact that an organization like ACLU, > comes under the > hellfire and damnation that they do says more about the organization than > it does about the constitution they seek to preserve. I would think it actually says more about the people who only want the Bill of Rights to apply to ideas/actions they approve of (this is not saying you're one of those, Patrick -- but I've run across the type all too ofen. For instance, while it's not surprising that many people think only two political parties should be allowed -- that nonsense is drummed into us from 1st grade, if not earlier -- I've been shocked and frightened by the number that think only *one* [theirs, of course, be it the Democratic or Republican party] should be allowed on the ballot). > > > It gets pretty dangerous playing the game called 'What The Founder Fathers > Intended When They Wrote The Constitution/Bill of Rights'. I don't really > know, but at least I make no claims of some superior knowledge on the matter. > But I really don't think in their wildest reveries they intended to see > their documents misused to cover every bizarre social illness in an America > two centuries later, as the ACLU seems to imply. While I'm irked by the ACLU's seeming *preference* for offbeat defendants, I'm all for their *willingness* to defend the unusual. First, on ethical grounds -- Human rights are universal -- and second, on practical grounds. As Ayn Rand put it, when The State wants to violate a right, it starts with the most socially unacceptable elements and violates their rights ... but then moves on to the rest of us. If we can prevent politicians from repressing the leftwing crazies and the rightwing crazies, then the rest of us should be fairly safe! > > I think ACLU lawyers and federal judges should have their noses rubbed > in their messes also. Let them all live in the inner city areas of Chicago, > New York and El Lay. Let them get mugged and raped a few times; maybe have > their homes burglarized by someone on a drug binge. If we adopted the ACLU's drug legalization program, homes wouldn't be burglarized for drug money, because drugs wouldn't be a Mafia monopoly with monopoly prices. Nor would we have pushers trying to hook our children. When's the last time somebody broke into a house for booze money -- or hung around a school yard selling whiskey? > > Then let's all sit down again in a month or two, and I will try to listen > patiently once again while they tell me about civil liberties for animals > who out of charity are referred to as 'human beings'. I think the problem is not the ACLU's insistence on due process. I think it's lenient sentencing (the two are *not* the same!), and the system's obsession with victimless crimes (at one point in Texas, arrests for public drunkeness [not disturbing the peace or similar acts] were some 50% of *all* arrests! And how many police hours are spent closing down penny-ante poker games, raiding adult bookstores, busting folks for selling marijuana, hauling prostitutes to the stationhouse, and so on -- hours that could be spent patrolling streets and parks and thus discouraging burglars, rapists, and muggers? A freer society would be a safer society. Jeff Daiell -- ________ In Hoc Signo |__/__/_ Vinces __/__/_|
dplatt@coherent.com (Dave Platt) (04/28/89)
[The following is a letter that I emailed to Patrick Townson yesterday,
in response to one of his recent postings concerning the ACLU et al.
Patrick wrote back and suggested that I post the letter, even though he
and I remain somewhat in disagreement. Thanks, Patrick!
The letter has been lightly edited, and includes some material I sent
to Patrick in a second email letter.
Please note the Followup-to: line. I don't think that news.misc is the
appropriate place for this discussion to continue.]
Patrick: there's one thing I think you should consider. The number of
cases in which accused (or convicted) criminals are released or retried
due to "technicalities" (such as a court ruling that evidence was
illegally acquired) is quite small. The figure I remember hearing is
that only 1-2% of criminal trials are ever materially affected by these
sorts of rules.
"Liberal" court rulings (such as the Miranda decision) have led to the
generation of much noise and fury. They're a popular whipping-horse
among groups that blame these "criminal-coddling" decisions for this
country's high crime rate.
However... there's little evidence that these decisions have had any
substantial impact on the effectiveness of criminal-law enforcement.
Most accused felons who are brought to trial, are convicted. The
police, FBI, and other law-enforcement organizations have shown
themselves quite capable of doing an effective job while staying within
the boundaries that the courts have laid down.
I agree that it's often difficult to interpret what the Founders
intended, or how they would have suggested handling some of today's
problems (which did not exist 200 years ago). However, our Constitution
is a workable and effective framework for balancing our individual
liberties against our need for a stable and workable social framework.
The tendency of almost any Government (as an organization) is to gather
greater and greater amounts of power unto itself, and to assert
increasing amounts of control over citizens' lives. As the bumper
sticker says, "Love your country, but never trust its government."
There _must_ be some counterbalancing force, or we'll end up living in a
country completely controlled by the State... either a reactionary
right-wing near-fascism or a radical socialist/communist near-fascism.
Neither of these appeals to me.
Currently, the ACLU acts as that counterbalancing force. Admittedly,
they sometimes tend to take extreme positions. Given their role, it's
not surprising that they do. It's a standard negotiating tactic... you
take one extreme position, somebody else takes the opposite position,
and the negotiating process (courts, arbitration, etc.) studies both
arguments and generally settles on a solution that lies somewhere in the
middle.
It's true that there's some risk that people may decide to give away
some of their freedom in return for a promise of additional safety and
security. Such freedom, once discarded, is often very difficult to win
back... governments that acquire great power over their citizens are
usually reluctant to restore this power to the people.
This sort of thing has happened in many other places around the world.
It happened in Germany back in the '30s. It happened, to a lesser
extent, in America in the '50s. It happened in Argentina during the
leftist insurgency that led up to the "dirty war". It happened a few
years ago in Nicaragua after the Sandanistas gained power. I don't want
to see it happen here.
I recall reading a few years ago that a bunch of college students went
out gathering signatures for a petition. The petition argued that the
U.S. Government should be forbidden from performing a specified list of
actions, and that American citizens should be free to perform specified
actions without government interference.
Only about 15-20% of the people that these students interviewed were
willing to sign the petitions. A substantial number of people felt that
the students were trying to cause trouble, were misguided, were
Communist-inspired, or were otherwise promoting an ill-considered or
incorrect cause.
Very few people realized that they were being asked to sign a copy of
the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution: the Bill of
Rights.
_This_ sort of ignorance about our country's history and legal framework
is what really scares me.
I too, often find it offensive that certain individuals take advantage of
loopholes, questionable interpretations of law, or other aspects of
our Bill of Rights protection, and use these protections as a shield behind
which to commit and (sometimes) get away with murder, literally. I do
sometimes think, "It'd be great if somebody would just go beat the
^&*@&^ out of those SOBs. We know they're guilty; throw 'em the hell
in jail without bothering with a trial, and throw away the key. Beat
a confession out of them, just as they beat the brains out of that
jogger in New York this week."
Then, I ask myself if I, personally, am willing to give up MY protection
against being treated in the same way if I were suspected of a crime.
Would I be willing to have my friends so treated? Would I want my wife
and relatives to be subject to arbitrary arrest and strip-search based
merely on a policeman's whim? Would I want the FBI to be able to
wiretap my phone and bug my house, based solely on an anonymous tip,
without having to justify the intrusion to a judge? Would I want my
company's records and assets to be subject to arbitrary seizure because
someone in the D.O.D. suspected that we've developed a new
(unclassified) technology that the Army would find useful? Am I willing
to accept that I and everyone I know should be treated as criminals,
simply because other people _are_ criminals?
I wouldn't. I'm not. And I don't know of any way to guarantee that
legal protections can be offered only to "good" people, and stripped
away from only the "true" criminals.
If one of us loses a Constitutional protection, we ALL lose it. Look at
the USSR, or Chile, or El Salvador, and see where that path can lead.
--
Dave Platt FIDONET: Dave Platt on 1:204/444 VOICE: (415) 493-8805
UUCP: ...!{ames,sun,uunet}!coherent!dplatt DOMAIN: dplatt@coherent.com
INTERNET: coherent!dplatt@ames.arpa, ...@uunet.uu.net
USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc. 3350 West Bayshore #205 Palo Alto CA 94303karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer) (04/28/89)
The difference between a liberal and a civil libertarian is that a liberal will fight for the free speech of those with whom she agrees while a civil libertarian will fight for the free speech of anybody. Many liberals who were ACLU members quit after the ACLU defended the Nazis' free speech rights, among others. Some quotes: "America is a stronger nation for the ACLU's uncompromising effort." -- President John F. Kennedy "The simple rights, the civil liberties from generations of struggle must not be just fine words for patriotic holidays, words we subvert on weekdays, but living, honored rules of conduct amongst us...I'm glad the American Civil Liberties Union gets indignant, and I hope this will always be so." -- Senator Adlai E. Stevenson "The ACLU has stood foursquare against the recurring tides of hysteria that from time to time threaten freedoms everyhere... Indeed, it is difficult to appreciate how far our freedoms might have eroded had it not been for the Union's valiant representation in the courts of the constitutional rights of people of all persuasions, no matter how unpopular or even despised by the majority they were at the time." -- former Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "Contemptuous lights flashed across the computer's -- karl@ficc.uu.net console." -- Hitchhiker's Guide
flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) (04/30/89)
In article <3994@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <8301@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > > >> The fact that an organization like ACLU, >> comes under the >> hellfire and damnation that they do says more about the organization than >> it does about the constitution they seek to preserve. > >I would think it actually says more about the people who only want the >Bill of Rights to apply to ideas/actions they approve of (this is not The English civil liberties union is careful not to irritate people like Mr Townson. As a result, it's just another left-wing pressure group. Liberty isn't free; in England no-one wants to pay the price; few even think it's rational to pay any price at all for it. -- From: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) Reply-To: sheridan@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Portal,MacNet: FlashsMom
dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) (04/30/89)
In article <8301@chinet.chi.il.us} patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: }In article <767@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) writes: } }> What happened with Ramparts magazine? Sounds like the ACLU is }>well intentioned but very inflexible, IMHO. } }I think Ramparts is still around, published in the San Fransisco area, or }maybe southern California. 'Rampart' is a word of French origin which }is a rather archaic term used by the military of two hundred years ago. It }is an embankment of earth with a wall around it, serving as a watching post }and place to hide from enemy fire. Whoops! I meant to say; What was the case involving 'Ramparts' about? Is it some militarist magazine that published 'How to build your own guided-missile system'? }Patrick Townson -- ********************** 'It reads: The Grail is in Castle AARRGH!' * dbell@maths.tcd.ie * 'Oooooohhhhhhh!' * belld@vax1.tcd.ie * 'No, it definitely says AARRGH!...' ********************** Monty Python & the Holy Grail
patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) (05/01/89)
In article <779@maths.tcd.ie> dbell@maths.tcd.ie (Derek Bell) writes: > Whoops! I meant to say; What was the case involving 'Ramparts' >about? Is it some militarist magazine that published 'How to build your own >guided-missile system'? Go back and read earlier messages in the series. Ramparts announced in one issue that in the next issue they would explain in great technical detail how to create your own (computer-acceptable, but fraudulent) telephone calling card/billing number. This was almost twenty years ago, and telephone credit cards, as they were called then, used very simple minded formulas to 'prove' the authenticity of the card number given to the operator for billing purposes. It was your ten digit phone number with a 'key letter' at the end of it. The 'key letter' would be matched with the various digits from zero to nine, and would be one of the digits in the phone number. This changed from year to year for security purposes. The trouble was, you and nine or ten of your friends could get together, compare billing numbers/letters, and manage to figure out what letter matched which what digit each year. Then you of course mutually agreed not to abuse *each other's* cards, but could easily make up numbers for billing your calls. Ramparts was going to explain all this in detail, along with the formula and key letters for the year. AT&T flew into a rage; they were absolutely livid about it and got a court order to kill publication of that issue of Ramparts. By the early 1970's, it had gotten to the point that everyone knew how the phone system worked, leaving Bell/AT&T feeling like sitting ducks where fraud was concerned. One of the points made at that time regards ESS, or electronic switching, was that it would assist in cutting back the very severe losses due to fraud that Bell suffered in the 1970's. In a hearing before the Federal Communications Commission in 1975 discussing certain interstate phone rates, in response to a question by a Commissioner regards losses due to fraud, a representative from New York Telephone stated they *in that company alone* had written off ten and a half million dollars the year before due to fraud billings. I believe Ramparts took the case to Appeals and lost it at that level also. -- Patrick Townson patrick@chinet.chi.il.us / ptownson@bu-cs.bu.edu / US Mail: 60690-1570 FIDO: 115/743 / AT&T Mail: 529-6378 (!ptownson) / MCI Mail: 222-4956
gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) (05/02/89)
In article <8257@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes: > In article <555@cvman.UUCP> gdelong@cvman.UUCP (Gary Delong) writes: > >"The Congress shall make no law ...." > >Doesn't say anything about any other government agency or individual. > > The rules and regulations of government agencies are considered to be the > law. The establishment of the agency by Congress or the Executive is > sufficient to put the 'force of law' behind the rules of the agency. Do > you honestly believe there is an actual law in the United States Code > somewhere validating every single rule of the Internal Revenue Service? > Do you believe you could avoid the regulations of the IRS by claiming > there is no actual law on the books? Irrelevent.. Has nothing to do with "Freedom of Speech". A very simple extension of the same reasoning that applies the 2nd Ammendment to only the Militia would say that it is much clearer that the 1st applies only to the Congress. > This could be another example of the types of illegal speech I was > requested to post yesterday. The right of the public and the government ^^^^^ > to an unbiased forum, conducted with decorum for the purpose of hearing > and ajudicating grievances with each other is superior to the right of > 'free speech' in that place and at that time. Where is this "right" enumerated in the Consititution? > Neither does your right to free speech give you the authority to lie under > oath at any time. And just as you may not address an officer of the court > in a disrespectful manner, you may not address members of Congress in a > disprepectful manner while that body is in session. Disrepect not only > includes acts of commission (lies, laughter, mocking) but acts of omission > as well (failure to appear when requested). That is what Contempt of > Congress is all about, and that is a pretty heavy rap also. Gee, that seems to impinge on my 1st Ammendment rights, I think I'll call the ACLU. 8-) > Patrick Townson Don't take this as more than it's meant. It's really just a restatement of a quote oft attributed to Will Rogers, "No man's liberty is safe while the Congress is in session." But NOW, onto soapbox: 0 ~~~~ /|\ | / \ |-----| |soap | |_____| I really think the Consititution and its Ammendments mean "exactly" what they say. And if we don't like it we shouldn't use the argument of changes in society to justify a "more modern interpretation". I don't belive English to English is "interpretation". I think that if people want the Consititution to say something else they should follow the procedures outlined for ammending. This bull of the courts making law by "interpretation" is just that... BULL. IMHO a significant number of SC rulings violate the concept of separation of powers and are, on their face, unconstitutional. (As I feel are many of the laws passed by the Congress under the "Commerce" provision.) 8-{ -- _____ / \ / Gary A. Delong, N1BIP "I am the NRA." gdelong@cvman.prime.com | \ / COMPUTERVISION Division {sun|linus}!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ Prime Computer, Inc. (603) 622-1260 x 261