Xref: utzoo news.admin:6390 news.groups:11114 gnu.misc.discuss:11
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!mcb
From: mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies
Summary: Appropriatness of "gnu.*" for private advocacy
Message-ID: <323@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 26 Jul 89 22:00:12 GMT
References: <7429@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, Pleasanton CA USA
Lines: 50

[From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":]
>   operating system with freely redistributable source code.  The GNU
> ! Project is led by Richard Stallman.  Note that use of these groups to
> ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political
> ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to
> ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws).

I question the appropriateness of the use of publicly-funded educational
and government networks (both on the Internet mailing list side and
the gnu.* Usenet side) for organized private political advocacy.  To
my point of view, this is no different than the Republican or
Democratic party sponsoring *and controlling* a newsgroup or mailing
list, or the use of newsgroups/mailing lists for private commercial
purposes.

There is nothing wrong with use of the publicly-funded networks for
open discussion of any issue, including political and philosophical
issues, but I believe that use of them as a private forum for
political advocacy, where opposing viewpoints are suppressed, is
contrary to the charter and purpose of those networks and should be
considered a gross abuse of privilege.

If the "off-limits" material mentioned above is actually suppressed in
gnu.misc.discuss (i.e., the charter above is not mere posturing), I
propose to make a policy inquiry as to whether the gnu groups may
permissibly be carried on federal and other publicly-funded networks
(such as the DDN/NSF Internet and regionals, and state educational
networks) given the action and intentions of the groups' sponsor.

(For those who may read this and wonder why I -- a known libertarian
and freedom-of-expression activist -- seem to be taking a position
against free expression on the net, it is because the government-funded
networks occupy a special place in the community: they are funded by
tax revenues and organizational user fees paid by organizations that
are tax-funded.  It is important that these networks, like the
physical facilities of public institutions, not subsidize the private
political, commercial, or religious advocacy of various private groups
(such as FSF).  It is no different than if, for example, the
State of California decided to lend its printing presses for free
to Operation Rescue to print up an anti-abortion pamphlet.)

I would have no objection to FSF sponsoring newsgroups/mailing lists
on publicly-funded networks that were merely open forums for the discussion 
of FSF software, goals, or philosophy.  But by stating that contrary
political viewpoints or taboo subjects will be "off-limits", FSF has
crossed from sponsorship to private advocacy, and that is wrong.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb