Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!mcb
From: mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Changes to Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies
Message-ID: <341@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
Date: 3 Aug 89 19:22:27 GMT
References: <BOB.89Aug1173700@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu> <8908021802.AA00397@nlp9>
Organization: Postmodern Consulting, Pleasanton CA USA
Lines: 50

In article <8908021802.AA00397@nlp9> jym@nli.com (Jym Dyer) writes:
> Somehow I missed the original article, but these lines really
>  jumped out at me:
> 
> > I question the appropriateness of the use of publically-funded
> > educational and government networks for organized private pol-
> > itical advocacy. . . . I propose to make a policy inquiry as to
> > whether the gnu groups may permissibly be carried on federal and
> > other publicly-funded networks . . .
> 
> Welcome to America.  See Figure 1 . . . uh, I mean, Amendment 1.
> 
> I can't quite tell from the excerpt, but you seem to be looking
>  for some sort of official censorship.  Be aware that it is
>   illegal for the government to censor political advocacy.  It's
>    that gosh-durned Bill of Rights, you see.

[Mr. Dyer apparently did not have a chance to see the rest of the original
article which explained why I believe that publicly-funded forums must
not be used to sponsor exclusive, viewpoint-controlled advocacy.]

I am a freedom of expression advocate and activist; I am a strong
proponent of unbridled First Amendment rights.  Of course it is illegal
for the government to censor political advocacy; it is equally illegal
for the government to sponsor and fund political advocacy (as well as
religious and commercial advocacy).  To do so would be an improper use
of public funds to favor a particular group.   You might want to
read up on some constitutional law in this regard.

The example I gave was the state of California lending its printing
presses to Operation Rescue to print up anti-abortion pamphlets.  Do
you agree that that would be improper?  If so, can you see the analogy
to the public subsidy of network mailing lists/newsgroups where only
one point of view is permitted and others are suppressed?

Appended is a copy of the original article, [I mailed a copy of the
original article to Mr. Dyer] and I think you'll see what I mean.
Allowing private political/commercial/religious advocacy to be
sponsored by the government is wrong because it abridges the rights of
those who pay taxes (which are mandatory and coercively collected) but
do not want them used for advocacy purposes; an even greater danger is
that when private advocacy is sponsored and funded by the government
there is the risk that the positions advocated are deemed "official"
and enjoy special status not accorded to contrary views.  If you are an
ACLU member (I am) you might want to ask them for more information on
this issue.

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