Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!bbncca!rrizzo
From: rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.misc,net.motss
Subject: Re: Re: Corrupting Youth
Message-ID: <1053@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 22-Oct-84 20:18:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: bbncca.1053
Posted: Mon Oct 22 20:18:37 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Oct-84 01:38:06 EDT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 60

Charlie Martin says:

> 1) no matter WHO funded them, and no matter WHAT they're saying
>    these newpapers have the right to publish ANYTHING THEY DAMNED
>    WELL PLEASE!

Says who?  Jefferson, Paine, Mill ("On Liberty"), the Federalist Papers,
(small "l") libertarians, the Constitution, the US Code?  Newspapers have
no "right" to libel or slander, or to publish evidence illegally obtained
by wiretapping (a felony), or fraud -- impersonating a lesbian (no snigger-
ing, please) & breaking an implicit promise of confidentiality (thus,
invasion of privacy as well, a misdemeanor).

>  2) the reporterial (sp?) tactics you mention (concealed tapes 
>     -- consider "60 Minute's" concealed cameras) have been used at 
>    some length by liberal (statist-on-the-left) press, and I've
>    not heard of any trials against them...

To my knowledge, only rightwing groups, including quite a few campus
tabloids, have indulged in political or journalistic "dirty tricks"
that repeatedly, even insistently, involved persecution (that, simply,
is what it amounts to) of minorities already facing discrimination &
prejudice.  It's not "dirty politics as usual", but involves civil
rights and other violations (see above).  It's targeted at specific
groups or individuals with little power or status, unlike military
brass (Al Haig), or politicians (Democrats).  It's not "politics/
journalism" of any kind, but criminal conduct enhanced by bigotry.

Dartmouth is one of the most conservative schools in the ivy league;
the ivy league has never been exactly a "hotbed" of liberalism.  (The
word "liberal" seems to have lost all content.)  Both Democrats & Re-
publicans, liberals & conservatives, at Dartmouth were apalled by the 
Review's antics.

> 3) Anyone on the net advocating ANY form of censorship or punishment
>    or harassment (a class-action suit sounds pretty close to that,
>    no?) should --
>    a) get someone to post them the hassles Tim Moroney had with
>       net censors, and
>    b) remember that, if you can do it to them, they can do it to
>       you.

Cutting off external funding (& maybe services, too) isn't censorship
(tho' maybe it's ill-conceived: as one respondent pointed out, should
campus ski clubs be denied free equipment from manufacturers, etc?  &
don't schools depend in many ways on donations?).  The tabloids are
approved student publications, getting funding from student activities
budgets as well.  They also borrow the prestige, & sometimes the name
(DARTMOUTH Review), of the school itself.  They're part of the university
and fall under its rules & regulations, which proscribe criminal conduct.
Perhaps this ought to affect how they put out their papers, if not what they
express in them.  So what?  A cutoff of external funding for student publi-
cations would mean they could either go offcampus, retaining access to &
distribution on campus, typically like many external publications, and
having no administration except the cops & courts to deal with, or they
could be content with their campus funding & the administration's presence,
and compete on an equal footing with other student publications.

					Cheers,
					Ron Rizzo