Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gatech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gatech!jeff
From: jeff@gatech.UUCP (Jeff Lee)
Newsgroups: net.news.stargate
Subject: Re: Options available which should be considered
Message-ID: <11836@gatech.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 1-Feb-85 10:06:03 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.11836
Posted: Fri Feb  1 10:06:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 2-Feb-85 12:46:29 EST
References: <218@bgsuvax.UUCP> <808@cbosgd.UUCP>
Organization: School of ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 42

> For example, we might allocate so many K bytes of traffic to the
> moderated groups (and let the moderators decide what's the most
> important among the submissions, much like a newpaper) and so many
> other K bytes of traffic per day for unmoderated groups, much like
> a "public access" TV station.

I'm not a usenet freedom of speech fanatic probably because I've seen of of the
phone bills that we footed when someone decided to run $2000 worth of phone
charges on us (we called them, but no more). Something is obviously going to
have to give because with phone charges going nowhere but up and the amount of
news following right behind, no-one is going to be able to afford such a
luxury (see, I'm obviously not a fanatic because I see it as a luxury and not
an inalienable right). As far as the idea (reprinted above) that we might do
it like a newspaper (I know it was a suggestion; this is not a flame), let's
take a closer look and I'll give my reasons why I think we need to do better
than that.

I'm sure that most of you have seen the outcome of Ariel Sharon libel trial.
The jury decided that Time, Inc. had acted with reckless abandon when doing
the story, but that they had been ignorant of the facts and obviously didn't
know that they were defaming him (which was the only reason that they weren't
libelous, since they didn't do it on purpose). Time heralded this as a win
for them, but was it?? Jody Powell (this is probably the only time I will ever
agree with him) said that if anyone else was convicted of doing their job the
same way (a cab driver, doctor, steam shovel operator, or president) they would
be branded criminals. I agree (I'll bet you couldn't guess that, could you).

The point of this story is that the newspapers would be quick to bring
judgement on one of these other people, but (at least the ones that I have
seen) they do not bring judgement on one of their own. The only time recently
was TV-Guide condemning CBS on the Westmoreland libel case.  The reason that
this happens is because the people in control decide what is important
(presidential libel) and what is not important (newspaper libel). This is why
I think that we need to come up with a way that contains more checks and
balances. Maybe something based on the Constitution ?? Since money probably
(hopefully) won't come into it maybe it will work as in theory, here.

	Thanks, (gasp....)
-- 
Jeff Lee
CSNet:	Jeff @ GATech		ARPA:	Jeff.GATech @ CSNet-Relay
uucp:	...!{akgua,allegra,rlgvax,sb1,unmvax,ulysses,ut-sally}!gatech!jeff