Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dicomed.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!dicomed!boylan
From: boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: Censorship: A Case History (part 1, 11 Jan 84 to 23 Jan 84)
Message-ID: <172@dicomed.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-May-84 12:46:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: dicomed.172
Posted: Fri May 18 12:46:02 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 20-May-84 00:33:21 EDT
References: <761@pyuxa.UUCP>
Organization: DICOMED Corp., Minneapolis
Lines: 29

this is not needed

Most of the discussion about the actions of Tim what's-his-name vs
Brooks, et al @ unc miss the critical issue involved.  It is
inappropriate to prohibit SPECIFIC individuals from expressing
their views in such a situation.  Had Brooks and Assoc. uniformly
bared use of USENET for none work applications they would have
been on solid group, however to apply this to one individual only
is clearly a violation of that individuals rights.

The actions of Brooks and Assoc. are particularly unseemly since
they are at a public institution.

Tim screwed up by not treating this access denial as a freedom of
speech violation since there are standard grevience procedures for
this type of thing and that failing, the courts would clearly see
it as a constitutional issue.

I don't particularly care what Tim (or for that matter Brooks et al)
had/have to say but I think Brooks and friends acted like real
slime in their obvious attempt to stifle Tim what's-his-name.

Flames to /dev/null

Don't mean to sound like a liberal because I'm not ...
-- 
	Chris Boylan
	{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylan