Xref: utzoo soc.motss:19781 talk.rumors:3122 news.admin:6772 news.misc:3564
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!ogccse!blake!uw-beaver!rice!titan!foo
From: foo@titan.rice.edu (Mark Hall)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.rumors,news.admin,news.misc
Subject: Re: USENET site admin responsibilities (AND A RUMOR)
Summary: Can we get back to the purpose of the group?
Message-ID: <1126@brazos.Rice.edu>
Date: 7 Sep 89 15:13:02 GMT
Sender: root@rice.edu
Reply-To: foo@titan.rice.edu (Mark Hall)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Rice University, Houston
Lines: 93


  RUMOR AT THE BOTTOM

  Hershel Browne sez: 
>What really pisses me off in this discussion is the introduction of
>"property rights" considerations....So and so may have a right to say
>anything he likes, but the university of such and such doesn't have
>a duty to subsidize it; now THAT is crap. A university really DOES
>have a duty to make possible unfettered communication. 

   Where did you get this idea? 
   Yes, Pruss can say what he wants.
   No, he does not have the "right" to have his ideas send around the 
world at others' expense AGAINST THEIR WISHES. 

   If you don't believe this, let's turn the tables: 
   I want to send a postcard espousing my views to every household in 
the US. I want YOU to pay for it. OK? Surely you don't want to infringe
on my right to express myself. It is your DUTY to subsidize me. 
   Did you buy that? It is your argument.

>Perhaps a
>for-profit corporation doesn't, but I wish they would all go away
>anyway. I don't mean away from this network, I mean away from the
>face of the earth.
     
  Yes, Let's go back to the stone age. 
 
>The point these property-rights folks make is that the owner of the
>property (in this case, the computing equipment that makes net-access
>possible) have a right to determine what use their property is put
>to. Well, in a legalistic sense, they do. It's unfortunate, but
>they do.

   Yeah, property rights are such a pain for people who want everything 
given to them without having to work for it.    

> That doesn't vitiate the free-speech aspect of the
>situation, it merely underscores the fact that ownership (in this
>case of the means of communication, but means of production is
>still an apt phrase) may be used to thwart the substantive exercise
>of the freedoms to which these folks presumably pay lip-service.
>What they're really paying their homage to is power, not freedom.
>If the university of such-and-such has the POWER to deprive
>someone of the opportunity to communicate freely, then they have
>the (moral) right to do so. Enough to make a guy like me puke.

>The university of thus-and-such surely has the power to silence
>"satan's" voice. 

   Of course, they didn't. But admitting that would take away your 
reason for whining on the net, wouldn't it? 

   They do NOT have the power to silence satans voice. They can 
only control their own facilities. So all your self-flaggelation 
about how the powerful are evilly silencing Pruss is meaningless. 

>That doesn't make it right for it to so, and the
>power thus exercised does NOT make the free-speech issue go away.
>It would merely demonstrate, as if further demonstration were
>necessary, that our culture values property over every other value.
>Surely universities, of all our institutions, should rise above
>THAT. Right?

   Wrong. I am sure you have property which you want to control. 
(If not, please ship it all to me. I want to use it for a 
"Socialist Bonfire" and wienie roast next week.) 
Either you like property rights, or you don't. If you don't, 
please give up all claims to property. Put up or shut up. 

> Whenever someone is silenced because of the content
>of what he's saying, we should all take notice, because the content
>of what WE'RE saying might be the next thing to be found distasteful
>to the people with the power to silence us.
> H.

 (1)  Again, he was not silenced. 
 (2)  No one has the power to silence Pruss. 
 (3)  Hypocritical views on property rights merely make the 
      holder the target of ridicule. 


   Now, could we get all this crap off the network? (or at least 
 out of talk.rumors? )



    RUMOR: 

       Jim Bakker was found to be sane when his first words upon 
    entering the psychiatric ward for testing last week were: 

         "How did I do? Do you think they bought it?"