brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/31/84)
Around here, I'm known as staunchly anti-censorship and pro-freedom of speech. But this has nothing to do with freedom of the net. The unc case aside, how would you feel if other people used YOUR money to spread views you don't like. Everybody should be able to say whatever they like, but not with other people's money. If somebody came up to you and said, "excuse me sir, we would like to use your computer to make known the Moral Majority's fight for censorship of wicked things." Can anybody say you don't have the right to refuse if you want to? Now the case gets a little more complex in the case of a publicly funded system. But consider a government funded TV station like PBS, the CBC or the BBC. The employees are not allowed to just go on the air and say whatever they like at their own discretion, are they? Now opposing views are allowed equal time, of course, but no more than that. We can certainly see that Tim took more than his fair share of the time, even with wide margins of limits. Now the unc case is not black and white, and we don't know any of the facts except one report from an obviously biased source. But can anybody say there is an absolute right to the net? I think not. In fact, if we want the net to stay alive, we have to watch out. Already sites are pulling out due to the volume of crap. As soon as one big one does, that will shift the load on to some others, eventually forcing them to go, and so on and so on. == one dead net. -- Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ontario (519) 886-7304
scw@cepu.UUCP (06/02/84)
> Brad Templeton >Around here, I'm known as staunchly anti-censorship and pro-freedom >of speech. But this has nothing to do with freedom of the net. > >The unc case aside, how would you feel if other people used YOUR money to >spread views you don't like. Everybody should be able to say whatever they >like, but not with other people's money. If somebody came up to you and >said, "excuse me sir, we would like to use your computer to make known the >Moral Majority's fight for censorship of wicked things." Can anybody say >you don't have the right to refuse if you want to? > It depends, if someone just walked in off the street and said that I'd laugh in his/her face. If someone who would normally have access to the computers said that, I don't see how I could refuse. But I'd start practicing typing so as to keep those replies flowing out. >Now the case gets a little more complex in the case of a publicly funded >system. But consider a government funded TV station like PBS, the CBC or >the BBC. The employees are not allowed to just go on the air and say >whatever they like at their own discretion, are they? Now opposing views >are allowed equal time, of course, but no more than that. We can certainly >see that Tim took more than his fair share of the time, even with wide >margins of limits. There is a diffrence between an organization that is in the buisness of bradcasting (as its PRIMARY product) and one in some other buisness (say education) that is brodcasting (net news) as a by-product of some other operations. Fair share of time??? HUH? I think that you should rethink just what it is that you are saying. There is *NO SUCH THING!!!*. > >Now the unc case is not black and white, and we don't know any of the facts >except one report from an obviously biased source. But can anybody say there >is an absolute right to the net? I think not. In fact, if we want the net >to stay alive, we have to watch out. Already sites are pulling out due to >the volume of crap. As soon as one big one does, that will shift the load >on to some others, eventually forcing them to go, and so on and so on. > == one dead net. The question is not weither there is an absolute right of access to the net, but rather did UNC/Brooks&Co. deal in a fair and reasonable manner with Tim. Given the Evidence that has been seen (and the lack of any evidence to the contrary from UNC) we can make the following finding. (1) They did not give Tim a fair hearing in that: (a)They didn't give him a list of the charges against him (b)They refused several times to name his accusers. (c)For every charge refuted and new one was trumped up. (2) They acted in an arbitrary & discriminatory manner in that: (a)They denied Tim access to the net while allowing others access to the net. (b)That this access was denied strictly because of a dislike of the views and postings of Tim. It is my considered opnion that if Tim had decided to take UNC/brooks &Co. to court (With the help of say the ACLU) that he would have one. Now to those who say that 'UNC can't respond because they may have to post derogatory information about Tim', I say FOO. They could certainly post a statment to the effect that 'Tim was treated in a fair manner' And to post (with derogatory information deleted) the relavant corespondance. My contention is that the Net is acting (in this case) as a Grand Jury and that we have returned an indictment against UNC. In response to your worry that the net may go away. Better *NO* net than a *CENSORED* one. Besides if the big (backbone) sites go away the net will continue to run, little sites will connect to each other and we will end up with a slower an somewhat less relaiable net. I seriously doubt that usenet can be killed by any one group of people (except for the Phone companies by pushing phone rates out of sight) as there are just too many ways to reconfigure the net. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
bsafw@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (06/04/84)
That example about the Moral Majority is an interesting one -- they
actually tried exactly that (only they didn't quite ask) on a local BBS. As
the BBS was devoted to free speech (anyone familiar with CommuniTrees?), we
(sysop & fairwitnesses (asysops to the uninitiated)) concluded that they could
post their views but not censor the Tree. They tried censorship anyway;
eventually they gave up because the censorship caused ALL Tree users to shun
the Moral Majority no matter *What* subject was being discussed (and we did
have some sympathetic users before that).
Which raises a similar possibility on here. Can the Net restrict
received news to UNC, or some similar action, until/if/when UNC shows due
cause to have ousted Tim from the Net? It seems to me that, although it may
be a University matter, it is also very much a Usenet matter, and we should
guard against universities performing this kind of censorship.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...(he himself being Brandon Allbery
one universe's prime decvax!cwruecmp!{atvax!ncoast|ncoast}!{bsafw|stuart}
example of utter, MCI Mail: 161-7070
rambunctious free USMail (core dump):
will!)" 6504 Chestnut Road
Independence, Ohio 44131