Xref: utzoo rec.music.synth:17204 comp.sys.amiga:71868 comp.sys.mac.misc:5852 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:3785 misc.legal:22673
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!uflorida!gatech!mcnc!beguine!samba.acs.unc.edu!heidia
From: heidia@samba.acs.unc.edu (heidi aycock)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Your Rights under the 1976 Copyright Act
Message-ID: <1655@beguine.UUCP>
Date: 16 Nov 90 18:27:04 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.044109.12165@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <2653@ttardis.UUCP> <1990Nov9.210351.23551@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <4859@optilink.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@beguine.UUCP
Reply-To: heidia@samba.acs.unc.edu (heidi aycock)
Followup-To: rec.music.synth
Organization: UNC Acad. Comp. Serv.
Lines: 16

Were we protecting our first ammendment right to free expression, we
could not choose the topics that we want to allow and not allow. For
example, if we allow speech that tells how to build an atomic bomb we
cannot forbid speech that tells how to crack copy protection schemes.
Content-based censorship is rarely tolerated by the Supreme Court
(Obscenity is probably a good example of when content-based censorship
is tolerated). As someone mentioned to me recently on a different topic,
the only way you can censor expression is through time/place/manner
restrictions -- and I think they call it "regulating," not "censoring"
(two different hoods for the same executioner, if you ask me).

On the other hand, just because we have the right to free expression
doesn't mean we should feel obligated to say anything and everything. If
you choose not to say something because it might endanger the net,
that's discretion not self censorship. And discretion is something to be
valued.