Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!sumax!spector
From: spector@sumax.UUCP (Mitchell Spector)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: USENET site admin responsibilities (was: Re: Censorship is for Wusses)
Summary: Different sites have different legal and moral responsibilities.
Message-ID: <880@sumax.UUCP>
Date: 7 Sep 89 17:08:28 GMT
References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> <2860@splut.conmicro.com>
Reply-To: spector%sumax.UUCP@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Mitchell Spector)
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle, WA
Lines: 60

(I have removed the random collection of newsgroups this was posted to,
leaving only news.admin.)

In article <2860@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>264 lines of argument based on an invalid assumption: that there is such
>a thing as freedom of speech on the net.
>
>Sorry, Blair, but it doesn't work that way in the real world. Them that
>has the gold makes the rules. There is no more freedom of speech on any
>site than those who own the system allow. If you think that there should
>be freedom of speech on my site, send me $5000, and I'll sell you the
>computer; otherwise, stop trying to tell me how to run it.

   I am tired of hearing this argument.  There are many different types of
site on the net, each with different legal and moral responsibilities.
What you say applies only to home sites and some small businesses.
But sites on the net also include public universities, private universities,
corporations, other large businesses, and governmental organizations.
These are considered to have different responsibilities from one another
(although there is overlap between, for example, public universities and
government organizations, and there are some businesses with special
functions, namely public-access sites).

   In the United States, for instance, there are non-discrimination
statutes which must be followed by anyone doing business with the public.
Government sites (including public universities) must follow even more
stringent principles of fairness.  The administrators at most sites
cannot simply do whatever they want.

   Moreover, I would hope that most sites would do more than their minimum
responsibility under the law.  (After all, they've voluntarily chosen to
carry Usenet, so they probably want to support its function of facilitating
communication between individuals.)  Perhaps private universities are the
best example here.  Traditionally, universities have regarded freedom of
expression as fundamental to their nature.  They generally do not censor
books in their libraries, even though they legally could, simply because
they regard censorship as contrary to their function and philosophy.
Clearly, academic freedom should apply to electronic communication just as
it applies to communication by print and by speech.  (And, in fact, we do
see most universities fully supporting academic freedom in netnews.)

   Freedom of expression and equality of opportunity benefit all of society.
Diversity of viewpoint is the net's greatest asset.  We all benefit if we do
not try to adhere strictly to the minimum legal requirements (or even try to
get by with less than that).

   (Two minor comments: Yes, I realize that there are even more types of site
than I listed above, and I realize that both laws and customs differ from
country to country.  This just strengthens the case.)

>Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
>jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
>{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------

--
Mitchell Spector
Dept. of Computer Science and Software Engineering
Seattle University
E-mail: spector%sumax.uucp@beaver.cs.washington.edu