Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-k.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-k!tim
From: tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.legal
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech and the net
Message-ID: <46@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 17:08:19 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-k.46
Posted: Wed Nov 14 17:08:19 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 04:24:23 EST
References: <201@looking.UUCP> <7@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <> <1842@nsc.UUCP>, <475@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 52
Keywords: US Constitution

> > To sum up:  If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you,
> > and this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your
> > postings, your civil rights have been violated.
> 
> Now that the US Constitution has been distributed over the entire Usenet
> you have no excuse for not reading it.
> 
> The First Amendment says: "*CONGRESS* shall make no law ... abridging
> the freedom of speech."  (emphasis mine).
> 
> If someone else abridges your freedom of speech (and this happens all
> the time) your civil rights are not being violated -- UNLESS this
> abrigement is executed by some government entity, federal or otherwise.

The courts have never treated the Constitution the way a fundamentalist
Christian claims to treat the Bible.  The approach used is that of upholding
the spirit and not the letter.  Since you are representing yourself as
knowledgable concerning these matters, you have no excuse for your lack of
familiarity with the workings of the courts.  (And I wouldn't have thrown in
that comment if not for yours....)

The concept of "civil liberties" is much broader than the wording of the
Bill of Rights suggests, at least under the interpretation of the courts.
For instance, consider the "Constitutional right to privacy".  This appears
nowhere explicitly in the Constitution, yet it forms the basis for a large
number of rulings defending the privacy of individuals.  The Supreme Court
held that it was clearly implied by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court,
not lay literal interpretation, is the ultimate authority on the document's
meaning.  Consider the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids racial
discrimination only by the states; yet we all know that it is an illegal
violation of a person's civil rights for a private company to refuse to hire
him on grounds of race.

> By convention, using political means to silence another's use of a
> medium (such as Usenet), is considered a violation of *ETHICS*, which
> I take just as seriously as a constitutional violation.  This is what
> happens on Usenet.  It is not, then, illegal -- merely despicable.

Despicable, yes, but not legal.  Still, at least our conclusions are
similar to that extent.

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I felt sure someone else would jump
on these misinterpretations.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K
uucp:	Try sending through a gateway such as DECWRL, UCB-VAX, SEISMO,
	or HARVARD -- mailer conventions differ on syntax

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.