jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (11/24/88)
In article <179@loci.UUCP> clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) writes: >In article <1223@fig.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >> From: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) >> >If enough people from ANY ETHNIC GROUP feel offended, the jokes >> >should not be posted. >> And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? >> Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. > > This is an example of "loop-hole opportunism", a point of view > that says "if it's legal it must be ethical". The intent of the > Bill of Rights is to provide protection, not to be used as an > instrument of abuse of others. No, this [ from Nancy on down ... ] is an example of continued wrong thinking. The First Amendment does not permit one to say whatever they so desire. Laws exist restricting ``offensive'' language in public forums. The most obvious example being The Seven Deadly Words, as George Carlin refers to them. Similiarly, obscene or sexually explicit language has repeatedly been denied protection by the courts. There is no reason to expect material which is inciteful to be protected. However, we can only hope that this entire line of arguing does not apply. And indeed, private networks such as Home Box Office are permitted to produce and transmit information which would be restricted in an open public forum. How else would I have seen George Carlin do The Seven Deadly Words if private networks were restricted? -- John F. Haugh II +----------Quote of the Week:---------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Okay, so maybe Berkeley is in north- InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | ern California." -- Henry Spencer UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (04/04/89)
In article <1441@blake.acs.washington.edu>, gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes: > ... But a site also has the right to encourage the second > person to exercise his right at another site. Or temporarily suspend #2's > posting priviliges. Or put #2 on probation. > > Legally, the rights of a system administrator to police his/her > site has little to do with the First Amendment. Only when an agent of > the state, such as a state-run university, can we even entertain First > Amendment arguements--and even then, only under certain conditions, > depending on the terms access to posting was granted. > I don't think the original posting made it clear the author was strictly speaking of the net. If that was the author's intent, that's one thing. But a blanket proclamation that 'offensive' speech *in general* should be subject to censorship is itself offensive -- but within the author's rights! Just say NO to Big Brother. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread, Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead. -- Don Paarlberg