Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer
From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Example #22)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: On unc!tim: You don't *know* that!
Message-ID: <531@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-May-84 14:30:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: decwrl.531
Posted: Thu May 24 14:30:40 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 31-May-84 19:17:05 EDT
Organization: DEC Engineering Network
Lines: 82

Re: On unc!tim: You don't *know* that!_________________________________________

> Folks, no one discussing Tim's situation here on the net knows one thing
> about the case.  Consider what we have seen in the case so far: we have
> seen the defendant's claim to innocence.

	Though I agree that we've seen one side of the argument, I'd say that
that side of the argument was expressed in the editorial statements that Tim
added here and there in his mailings.  These were enclosed in square brackets.
	It looks to me that these mailings are *evidence* for Tim's case, not
arguments.

>> I have ascribed motives to Dr. Brooks and other which may not be truely
>> their motives.
> I nominate this for Understatement of the Year.  Considering the lack of
> knowledge which we have about Dr Brooks, you have ascribed motives which are,
> in all likelihood, *not* true.

	Let's put this in the "we don't know" category.  You don't know the
extent of his knowledge regarding Dr. Brooks.

> If some individual developed the antisocial habit of posting articles to a
> newsgroup which consisted of nothing but four-letter words, I would not only
> expect UNC to censor that person, I would *REQUIRE* them to do so.

	How would you require them to do so?

> If I were sysadmin at a state-supported site, and I began to receive arti-
> cles consisting of nothing but four-letter words, I would go through proce-
> dures to have that other site censor the person involved.  This is at a
> public institution, but I think most people would have a hard time arguing
> that censorship in such a case is inappropriate.

	What "procedures" would you go through?  By whose standards are we to
determine what should be censored or not censored?  Freedom of speech includes
the right to utter four-letter words.  You may think that that freedom does
not apply to the Usenet which, after all, exists because a number of institu-
tions pay for it; but I submit that the _de_facto_ freedom of speech we have
on the Usenet indicates that most of us want no censorship.  You take the good
with the bad.

<Mild Flame On>

	Discussions of freedom of speech always remind me of an TV interview
with Abbie Hoffman I once read about.  Paraphrasing:

	    Interviewer:  You believe in freedom of speech?
	    Abbie:	  We believe in total freedom of speech.
	    Interviewer:  But surely you don't believe you can
			  yell "fire" in a crowded theatre?
	    Abbie:	  FIRE!!!

	I feel that freedom of speech/press is very, very important.  It is,
after all, the *first* right listed in the Bill of Rights.  I can't think of
one application of censorship that I can justify.
	For example, I'm a strong advocator of women's rights; but I can't
abide with the views of some feminists who wish to censor pornography.  It's
the free expression of ideas, though the ideas may indicate sick minds; and
it's more important to recognize that such expressions are *symptoms* of the
true problem.  We may never find out about the true problem if we censor the
symptoms.
	Tim is, one may argue, an employee of an institution and as such must
abide by that institution's rules.  However, this particular institution seems
to have acted capriciously (if the evidence we've seen is a valid indication)
and thus unjustly:  If there were rules regarding every employee's use of the
Usenet, and they were applied to everyone, then Tim would have to abide.
	Also, as UNC is a public institution, the rules it does apply must be
in accordance with the applicable laws.  (How's that for a sentence that
doesn't say anything?)  If, in fact, Tim was being denied access to the net on
the basis of the content of his articles, then some pretty fundamental laws
are being violated.

<Mild Flame Off>

	(Tim:  If you can read this, have fun living in Pittsburgh!  Watch out
for Liberty Avenue, though...)

		<_Jym_>
        ._________________________________________________________.
     .__! Jym Dyer <> Digital Equipment Corporation <> Nashua, NH !__.
  .__! Arpanet:  dyer%vaxuum.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA <> E-Net:  VAXUUM::DYER !__.
__! Usenet:  ...{allegra|decvax|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer !__