Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!moriarty From: moriarty@uw-june (Jeff Meyer) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Tim Maroney is wrong Message-ID: <1518@uw-june> Date: Wed, 6-Jun-84 00:35:47 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-june>.1518 Posted: Wed Jun 6 00:35:47 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Jun-84 08:46:42 EDT References: <893@eosp1.UUCP> Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci Lines: 98 A few responses to this article by Tobias Robison: >Mr. Brooks stated a position very >clearly in one communication -- that he did not wish TM to represent >his organization as an employee on the net. I think this is an >eminently reasonable position which requires NO justification at all Clearly? I'm not sure about that... it struck me that Brooks hemmed & hawed quite a bit before getting to the real meat of the matter -- that he did not want Tim broadcasting his views; e.g. the fact that he says that Tim is using up too much of the computer's resources. >The sources show that TM is unable to reason logically, >unable to understand other people's simple communications, and unredeemably >argumentative in all his dealings. I wouldn't want such a person to >represent my company on the net either. Well, here I would strongly disagree -- while I have read little of Tim's net.religion stuff, I thought the sources showed him to be extremely clear, reasonable and logical. He patiently tried to get a definite statement on why he was denied access. I guess we have different perceptions of the articles. >Now a position on censorship/discrimination: I don't believe that any >person has a right to publish anything on the net, >any more than any person has a right to publish anything that he wishes >in his company's, or anyone else's, newspapaer. <...> >I fail to see how the use of government funds affects this situation. >Have you ever tried demanding that the university give you the right to use >ALL of its equipment, in ALL laboratories, that is supported by public funds, >to use as you wish? Of course you have no such right. I agree here, partially: Mr. Robison has pointed out that there is no one has a legal right to demand use of the net when they do not own the computer; there is no way around it -- this does no enter into free speech or anything like that. If this had happened at a privately owned institution, I think there would be little left to say, other than regret at it's having occurred -- one likes to think that people in charge of upkeep of the net at a site can allow opinions in the netnews which do not reflect or which may disagree with their own; I like to think of it as the ethics of our profession, and as a sign of personal maturity. However, the problem here is this: those in control of UNC said "no more net" for Tim because the opinions he expressed in his net.religion articles disagreed with theirs, apparently. Let us use Mr. Robison's example: Obviously, I have no right to demand the use of any of my University's labs -- no question there. However, I believe that if suddenly my laboratory rights are taken away from me, not because of any lab practices, but because I happen to have different religious views than the lab instructor, then there is something fundamentally wrong here. If this was a privately owned lab, tough noogies, that's the (dirty) breaks; but here it is a public college, and while I am not qualified enough to make a legal statement, I'd guess that this enters into the question of discrimination. >The net may feel like a free communication medium with unrestricted rights, >but it is not. It is an extraordinary privilege that is paid for so that we, >hopefully, can all benefit in a way that will aid the people paying for the >net as well. <....> It is our fortune that the cost of netnews >is carried with so few conditions on its use. Here I agree 100%... it IS an extraordinary privilege to be able to use the net, and that these institutions have decided to take up the burden of these costs is both admirable and greatly appreciated (by me, at least). And I am thankful that there are so few conditions on its use... I have found the net to be one of the most delightfully free methods of communication I've ever come into contact with, a veritable biosphere of ideas and information. Also, as I have previously stated, no one not owning and maintaining a net site has an implicit right to use of the net. However, I don't think we are looking at NET rights, here; I think we are looking at a case of a public college denying a student access to something all other students in his position have, SOLELY DUE to the student's religious and political opinions. As for being a representative of the college -- if, again, this had been a private institution, then they might have seen it as "representing the company" (however, I think anyone who has read the net for 5 minutes can see it is a conglomeration of individuals, not company spokesmen); but a college, where (apparently) all comp. sci. students are allowed to use the net? How can anyone "represent" the college? I don't know, does anyone at the University of Washington think my articles misrepresent the UW? (If a member of the faculty, staff, or student body does, please tell me!). I have a tough time seeing my articles misrepresenting anyone but myself. I guess what this comes down to is not a legal "right"; I agree totally that these are not inherent in net use. However, a college is the first & last bastion of the ideal of free exchange of ideas. When this is censored or hampered in any way, to any form of educational stimulus which is being carried out in a mature, reasonable manner (e.g. someone giving a lecture being heckled during his speech -- as you may have noticed, this is impossible on the net, and is one of its many great advantages), this ideal is diminished, and the college loses some of its credibility. It seems to me that UNC's action to stop Tim Mahoney from "casting a bad light" on their institution has done exactly the opposite; they have withered their own credibility as a medium for education. "There is no mistreating the Abos... while there's anybody watching." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer UUCP: {ihnp4,cornell,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!moriarty ARPANET: moriarty@washington