karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) (09/09/90)
In article <11560@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: >In article <BZS.90Sep4203058@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry >Shein) tries to draw a comparison with Soviet publication policies >and concludes with: >>Food for thought? > >( Explanation for the sarcasm-impaired: > In general, just because it happens in the Soviet Union doesn't >automatically mean it is undesireable, as implied by Barry's >reference, even if it were a valid comparison in the current context; >cause and (implied) effect are much more complicated than such >statements suggests.) Barry referred to the systematic censorship of serious publications that are published surreptitiously, using photocopiers. Their publishers are attacked because they don't follow the party line, not because they're habitual libelers or frauds. Persecution of this sort is odious wherever it is practiced. I doubt that Barry chose the USSR as an example in order to provoke a knee-jerk anti-Red response; I doubt that he could do so with this audience. His comparison was a good one in the context of Gene's earlier comments to the effect that low-budget publications are less deserving of First Amendment protection. -- Chuck Karish karish@mindcraft.com Mindcraft, Inc. (415) 323-9000
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (09/11/90)
In article <9009091604.AA23599@mindcrf.mindcraft.com>, karish@mindcrf.UUCP (Chuck Karish) writes: > His comparison was a good one in the > context of Gene's earlier comments to the effect that low-budget > publications are less deserving of First Amendment protection. Prove it. Where did I ever say that anything was "less deserving" of First Amendment protection? If you are going to accuse me of things in public, better have proof to back it up. I said that I *perceived* a difference between two kinds of publication. That said nothing about my views on legal protection or status--whether related to budget or not. I asked if there was, in case or statute law, a definition of what a publication is and therefore what is protected by the "free press" part of the First Amendment. I also tried to point out that the First Amendment does not protect any arbitrary behavior just because it appears in print. That is not a statement about what deserves protection, anymore than saying that perceiving a difference between male and female means that you thus feel they deserve different rights. Until we know how "the press" is defined in law, it doesn't make much sense to say that the First Amendment has been violated by the confiscation of a computer system...unless you claim it violates your religious views. It is critical that early on we find out why a newspaper is part of the "press" and a radio station isn't, and apply that understanding to computers and computer networks. And please, unless you actually bother to read my postings with your brain in gear, could you followup to alt.flame next time? -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf