Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!umunhum!paulf
From: paulf@umunhum.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Cable Censorship
Message-ID: <1991Jun28.192704.12927@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 28 Jun 91 19:27:04 GMT
References: <MUFFY.91Jun26180609@remarque.berkeley.edu> <1991Jun28.002632.27854@neon.Stanford.EDU> <MUFFY.91Jun28000314@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: The Three Packeteers
Lines: 74

In article <MUFFY.91Jun28000314@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Read the thread.  This is *not* my definition, it was Michael
>Covington's definition.  My definition (or, at least, the one I grabbed
>out of the dictionary, which is kind of close to mine) is the
>restriction of material due to its "immorality," etc.

Then you don't think that attempting to stop the publication of the
Pentagon Papers was censorship?  Clearly this is a very limited view of
the problem.  Dictionary definitions (and since we are discussing a point
of Law here, leave Webster's out of it) aside, now that more facts have become
available, it appears that this is censorship in a wider context.

>I don't understand why people can't understand what censorship is.  It
>is not only the restricting of views you agree with (and therefore think
>ought to be expressed).  It is *any* restrictions. 

This is a contradiction.  A moment ago you were ranting that my defintion
of censorship was overbroad.  Now it's any restriction at all?

> Although I wasn't
>there at the time, I have always had the impression that "freedom of
>speech" was meant to include *all* views, not just the ones that
>"society" approved of.

Wrong.  As with all freedoms, there are limitations based on the rights of
others.  For example, kiddie porn is illegal in the US because the vast
majority of people find it patently offensive.   Existing obscenity statutes
are based on the concept of "community standards", where the very definition
of obscenity is tied with geography.  The legal fiction is that if you 
don't like the moral standards of a community, you shouldn't live there.

>  Have you ever noticed, by the way, that
>society's standards change?

Of course they do.  But not necessarily to the Left.

>  And how is that change effected?  Amazingly
>enough, it often comes about because people do things which are not
>approved of by society.

This is a byproduct of the legal system, which requires that a party must
be in jeopardy to have standing for litigation.  Sometimes they win.
Sometimes, they don't.

>I hardly even watch TV, so why would I want a dish?

That was a rhetorical suggestion.  If you don't like your local cable system,
you can always buy a dish.  

>  Frankly, you're
>making several unwarranted assumptions.

Would you mind listing a few?

>  By the way, whose "Community
>Standards" are we talking about here?  The original poster said that
>none of the subscribers were asked about the change - so, that's hardly
>listening to the "community," eh?

I honestly doubt that "none of the subscribers were asked about the change".
More likely than not, subscribers wrote to request the change, and the
company decided to perform the change *without* further public comment.
That's not the same thing as you're claiming.

If you'd like to read up on the "community standards" doctrine, I'd be happy
to forward some reading suggestions.  Followups to alt.censorship, where
this really belongs.

We now return you to the CPSR vs EFF flame wars...


--
-=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX        | "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU   | - Henry L. Stimson (1929)