Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!wang!elf!lee From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: prodigy Message-ID: Date: 8 May 91 16:48:25 GMT References: <14193.281F5781@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> <1991May04.163524.11374@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@wang.com Distribution: na Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc. Lines: 45 In-Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 4 May 91 16:35:24 GMT In article <1991May04.163524.11374@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: People do not understand that freedom of the press (and Prodigy is press) has two very important components: a) Nobody can tell you what not to print (freedom from censorship) b) Nobody can tell you what *to* print. (editorial control) Both are important. To insist that Prodigy allow gay/lesbian discussion against their will is not much different from forbidding them from having gay/lesbian discussion if they want it. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. That's no law in *either* direction. Well sorry, Brad, but it's not clear to many of us that a service like Prodigy is self-evidently "press", as you seem to claim. In the part of the service which presents (publishes) advertisements (mostly!) and Prodigy-initiated or Prodigy-contracted informative articles (rarely), they would seem to deserve tha same protections offered to the print and broadcast media. But in their provision of email service they would seem to be merely a by-subscription carrier, and their unpleasant lack of interfaces to other carriers does not disguise that fact. I don't see why the same protections offered to mail and telephone subscribers shouldn't apply. And I don't see why bulletin boards to which subscribers are welcome to contribute shouldn't be considered either (1) simply useful extensions of email, or (2) publishing ventures, but ones in which the subscribers are the publishers and Prodigy remains the carrier. Isn't some scheme like this simple and fair enough to be worth codifying as law, and the added marketability of email and bulletin boards sufficient to encourage commercial services to provide them even if they aren't allowed to control the contents? (By the way, I think the trashy, ad-oriented nature of Prodigy has encouraged many of us to criticize them for practices that would raise few complaints on GEnie, CIS, etc. They may be doing us a real service.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc. (Boston and New Hampshire AMC, and Merrimack Valley Paddlers) ------------------------------------------------------------------------