Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!intercon!amanda@intercon.uu.net
From: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: USENET site admin responsibilities (was: Re: Censorship is for Wusses)
Message-ID: <1439@intercon.UUCP>
Date: 8 Sep 89 15:42:23 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> <880@sumax.UUCP>
Sender: news@intercon.UUCP
Reply-To: amanda@intercon.uu.net (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation
Lines: 53

In article <880@sumax.UUCP>, spector@sumax.UUCP (Mitchell Spector) writes:
> 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.

Before I start, I want to say that I'm pretty Jeffersonian when it comes
to my ideas about human and civil rights; in particular, I hold the rights
of freedom of speech, the press, and religion to be absolutely central to
my ideas of how government and society should operate.

That being said...

Usenet is not public.  It is not part of the press.  Many organizations, and
universities in particular, have made the conscious decision to treat it
as if it were, and I think that this is a good and progressive thing to do.
I hope it foreshadows some of the future of electronic communication.  But
folks, we ain't there yet.  Until basically anyone who wants to can read these
articles, it's not a public medium.  I know a number of people who very much
want to read and post to Usenet but can't for reasons totally unrelated to
Usenet itself (the NYNEX strike, in one case).  Are their rights being
infringed?  No.  Are they annoyed?  Yes, to varying degrees.  Being thwarted
from doing something you want to do is not always a case of having your rights
infringed upon.

Freedoms of speech and of the press are just that.  Freedoms.  You are
*allowed* to exercise them.  If they require additional resources by which
to do so, such as a printing press, a radio station, or a computer, that's
your problem.  It is no one's duty but your own to supply them.  The fact
than someone else may let you use theirs is their option.

In the U.S.S.R it is illegal to distribute printed material of any sort
without prior authorization from the government.  If you are found to be
distributing or possessing samizdat, you can be arrested.  *That* is violating
freedom of the press, folks.  Telling someone to find another Usenet site
from which to post is not.

Let's keep some perspective here...

--
Amanda Walker
amanda@intercon.uu.net    |    ...!uunet!intercon!amanda
--
"Our liberty depends upon the freedom of the press, and that cannot be
limited without being lost."  -- Thomas Jefferson (1786)