Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net (Toby Nixon)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Info Needed on Prodigy Service
Message-ID: <14629@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 12 Nov 90 17:00:35 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA
Lines: 57
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 815, Message 3 of 8


In article <14532@accuvax.nwu.edu>, glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F.
Leavell) writes:

> If much of this is true, it raises some possibly interesting
> questions: If Prodigy is returning messages to the sender based on
> content, does this mean that they are reading all messages sent on the
> system?  Is this "right"?  Is this the same as censorship?  Becuase
> Prodigy is a private service, are they allowed to censor non-offensive
> material?  But, they are using a common-carrier (the phone) as their
> only access method.  Does this have any bearing on the situation?

I am not speaking for Hayes here!

Prodigy doesn't read mail sent directly from one subscriber to
another.  However, all forums/newsgroups/SIGs/(whatever they're called
on Prodigy) are MODERATED, just like comp.dcom.telecom, and the
moderator can reject any message they deem to be inappropriate.

What happened in this case is that these folks' messages inciting a
boycott were getting rejected by the moderators, so they (the
agitators) started mass mailing messages to other users individually.
When the recipients of these messages complained to Prodigy
management, the senders were expelled.

It's censorship, yes, but because it's not done by the government it
is completely legal.  There's no law against private censorship in
this country; you don't have unrestricted rights to newspapers, radio,
TV, etc.  Using the phone as an access method doesn't change this at
all; the phone company isn't doing the censoring.

I think that since Prodigy moderates their forums/SIGs, they accept
responsibility for the content.  That puts them outside the realm of
being a common carrier -- they shouldn't receive the protections a
common carrier receives, but they also aren't required to carry
anything regardless of content.  Prodigy, after all, isn't a regulated
monopoly with exclusive right to serve a particular territory, like
your local exchange carrier.  You CAN choose to use other services.

As for their kicking people off the system for broadcasting individual
messages: if their rules say you can't do that, then they're within
their rights to terminate service. Compuserve has strict rules against
employees of other information services recruiting users via
Compuserve messages, too, and they'd probably squelch any public
criticism that was as repetative and harrassing as (alledgedly) were
these Prodigy messages.

All those angry ex-Prodigy subscribers are perfectly welcome to move
their business to Internet, FidoNet, Compuserve, Genie, or just about
anyplace else. _I_ did, as soon as I got the first bill from Prodigy
following the free introductory period.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   +1-404-449-8791  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net