peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (05/27/84)
[we are all for equal opportunity] I share the hesitation of others in drawing conclusions based on the evidence thus presented, but, let's face it-- we are discussing a precedent. Whether it happened or not exactly as posted, it is conceivable that a similar situation could come up again and what we say here may well influence how that situation is handled. I believe the postings indicate that Tim has been wronged. Like it or not, society recognizes that with the possession of a resource goes responsibilty. If we have income, we are responsible for using part of that for the maintenance of the government and social services. If we are able to offer a job to someone, we must not choose our employee on the basis of race, for example. I would think a reasonable case could be made that, on the basis of the net postings, UNC did not assume its proper responsibility to be fair in the allocation of access to the net. Indeed, it is a privilege to be given access to the net, but we require institutions, PARTICULARLY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, to allocate privileges fairly and in accord with civil rights. Yes, UNC could *equally* restrict access to the net to various classes of users, using economic criteria. For example, the U. of Toronto's teaching VAXen are so loaded that we can't afford to give the users of those machines net access-- this results in most undergrads being denied access. But singling out Tim to be denied access while his colleagues (UNC staff) are apparently allowed free access is wrong. If economics dictated usage limits, they should have been *clearly* set and applied uniformly. If Tim then violated them, I could see reason for shutting off access-- but there was no evidence of such an agreement. Further, the economic argument in UNC's case was shot down completely. The law recognizes limits to free expression through libel, obscenity, and hate literature laws. Further, the net has standards of decorum. But there is no evidence that Tim violated any of these constraints. It appears that he was denied access on the basis of the intellectual content of his postings (and possibly his somewhat irritating mail manner-- though I understand he must have become very frustrated; particularly early on, when his plight was very Kafka-esque). Such discrimination is illegal, isn't it? Having free expression means being willing to let someone say something you don't want to hear-- obviously. It also means giving people equal (note-- NOT free) access to the media in which to publicize their views. Yes, you can have restrictions, but they must be precise, applied uniformly, and not infringe on any rights (e.g. freedom of religion, church/state separation). If rights are to mean something, they should be applied in day-to-day life. I wish UNC could show us that they had the US Constitution in mind when they dealt with Tim, or at least a basic sense of fairness. p. rowley, U. Toronto