Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site cca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!dee
From: dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.legal
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech and the net
Message-ID: <969@cca.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Nov-84 11:17:32 EST
Article-I.D.: cca.969
Posted: Wed Nov 21 11:17:32 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 22-Nov-84 08:17:20 EST
References: <393@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Organization: Computer Corp America, Cambridge
Lines: 24

I think this whole thing is a lot more complicated than most people are
making it out to be.  Consider the physical bulletin board case.  If the
bulletin board were maintained by a religious organization, I think they
would be found to have the right to allow only "Christian"" or whatever
messages. Similarly a political party would probably be found to have
the right to politically censor messages on a bulletin board it control.
(These may be dumb/bad things to do, but I am talking about legalities.)
What if a business adopted a general policy that all notices on a
physical bulletin board it controls must be signed by the poster, who
must be an employee, and must be signed by the posters supervisor
certifying that the posting of the message is not harmful to the
business?  This would be pretty cumbersome but I don't see that it
would be illegal/unconstitutional.

Although there are lots of exceptions these days to do with race, sex,
etc., isn't it still the default that a business can fire someone for
any reason?  If so, why can't a business threaten to fire someone if
they, say, post any computer messages referencing X and then carry out
the threat if the employee violates the directive?


-- 
	+	Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA:	dee@CCA-UNIX		usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee