Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rlgvax!plunkett
From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.misc,net.motss
Subject: Re: Re: Corrupting Youth
Message-ID: <215@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Oct-84 11:17:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.215
Posted: Wed Oct 24 11:17:30 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 06:58:30 EDT
References: <1053@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 25

Ron (Cheers) Rizzo writes,

> ...  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).

The accusations of illegality seem largely based on this one case--it
has been called an "invasion of privacy."  The way I have heard the
case, it involved a student reporter for the Dartmouth Review attending
a meeting of some homosexual group, one publicly advertised, held on campus,
and reporting about it.  I haven't read the report, but by the commotion
it has caused (the University is/was considering disciplinary action
against the student reporter), I would imagine it was critical, and perhaps
stirred up outrage in decent people who had not realized what such groups
were all about.

Inasmuch as homosexual activists avoid scrutiny of their activities by
the ignorant majority, I can understand their reaction, and their efforts
to recruit others not of their ilk to agitate against the Dartmouth
Review on spurious legal or ethical grounds.

Scott Plunkett,
..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett