karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (05/23/84)
Unfortunately, my last article on unc!tim did not do what I had hoped. I was hoping that it would slow down the mass of discussion by pointing out the problems of unbalanced information. I have learned quite a lot from this mistake, and so I'm posting this one last article on the sub- ject in the interest of correcting faulty impressions. ---------- > From: boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) > Karl Kleinpaste needs to take some courses in constitutional law. > No matter how much you dislike a particular persons positions you > can not simply ban them from promoting them. It doesn't make > any difference how obscene they might be or how wrong you may think > they are. ---------- (a) I never once said that UNC should ban anybody from promoting a position. In fact, I said repeatedly that I thought UNC was probably in the wrong, at least with regard to the extent of the restrictions imposed on Tim. However, I don't really know, because I have not yet heard from UNC; nor do I suspect I ever will. (b) It was pointed out by one supporter in the mail that my example of an appropriate point at which to censor someone was not as strong as it could have been. OK, here's a new scenario: Suppose someone's posting Unix kernel source code to the net. That is a clear violation of AT&T's rights with regard to Unix, and even though the person's posi- tion might be something like, "Nobody has a right to keep source code private," it's to be disregarded completely. The originating site must censor that individual, or else they become a party to the crime of copyright infringement. (I think the legal term is "accessory," but I'm not enough of a legal authority myself to say for sure.) It becomes a question of degree. Obviously, my example above is an extreme. UNC felt that Tim was abusing privileges. Tim thought he was not. We do not have enough evidence at this point to come to a firm conclusion as to which one was right. ---------- > The fact that unc!tim was a poor representative for UNC and similar > agruements just isn't important. Having granted a media for people > to express themselves, UNC has made a commitment. You cannot write > off the actions of Brooks and Co. simply by saying they have > rights as administrators that are over and above the right of free > expression. ---------- I do not write it off. I think UNC acted too strongly. (How many times will I have to say, "I think UNC went too far" before someone hears it?) I simply believe that they are within their legal rights to censor some- one if they conclude that such action is required. It is, of course, the prerogative of the censored individual to appeal the case. Tim did this, and got no satisfaction. We still don't know who was right (if either). ---------- > Some of the arguements that have been presented, in particular by > Kleinpaste, are the same type of nonsense that is put forth in > regard to the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases. > It may sound good but it isn't right. ---------- I have never advocated such a position, and I never will. The {UNC administration,city council,US govt} is not above the law; they must uphold it. In some cases, that may (*may*) require the imposition of restrictions on individuals. That's why courts put criminals in prisons. In UNC's miniature world, they think that Tim committed a "crime," and so they sentenced him to the "prison" of no net access. The only thing I'm getting at in all of this is that we simply don't know. I hold no firm position myself on who was right or wrong, other than an impression that UNC was too heavy-handed and should not have acted so strongly. Nothing more. -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk