Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!decwrl!mahoney@bach.DEC (Be verwy verwy quiet I am hunting wabbits) From: mahoney@bach.DEC (Be verwy verwy quiet I am hunting wabbits) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Chuq Message-ID: <632@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 16:42:34 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.632 Posted: Tue Oct 1 16:42:34 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 06:02:44 EDT Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 53 >The reality of the situation is that USENET isn't a 'free press.' If Don >Black was printing a newsletter with that tripe in it, I'd be the first to >give him the right to do so (I, of course, would also happily burn any copy >mailed to me.) I view USENET more as a wide-ranging company newsletter, >since it is funded mainly by corporate coffers. As such, the supporters >have the right (and responsibility) to restrict the editorial comment >to things that they feel are acceptable to the reading community (this is >the function of an editor in any publication -- Larry Flynt's editorial >policy is a lot different than Hefner, which is a lot different than the >Wall Street Journal). I certainly don't blame Don Black for holding his >views, the wonder of this country is that everyone is free to make >themselves act like idiots if they want. I do blame Dec for being unable or >unwilling to control the inappropriate editorial material coming from their >sites, just like I blame AT&T for used car ads in net.general. The reality >of the situation is that what Don Black says DOES rub off on Dec, mainly >because they seem unwilling to do something about it. I don't feel that the >material he posts is appropriate for this net, and I'll stand up and >applaude the day he leaves (this goes for a number of other people out >there, too, but Don black is the subject right now). > >The first solution to this kind of problem is, of course, to simply not >read his works. If he doesn't get any feedback he might decide to go away >(everyone gets tired of yelling into the wind...). Assuming that you feel >that his postings are so obnoxious that you have to take positive action >against them, there are two things you can do: Mr Von Rospach, I disagree with you that this is no more then a company newsletter. It is a forum for intelligent discussion and as such should be free of censorship. I often feel what Mr Black says is not intelligent but he should still have the right to say it. There are people on the net who agree with either all or some of what Mr Black says and their views should be heard. Personally I find his views repugnant and I don't know how an intelligent person could believe it. For this nation to remain a free nation he must be able to speak no matter what his ideas may be. I ask how you decide what is appropriate for this net and what is not appropriate it. What if you work for company that decides your material is inappropriate and Mr Black's posting are correct. Does that company have a right to not allow you to post. I feel that they do not ,but according to what you have said, they do. You have given them editorial power and thus the right to silence whomever they wish. I also ask you to remember where you have posted, to net.politics. That means ideas will be posted that are wide and varied because politics is a wide and varied topic. If you do not like the ideas posted then just ignore them. I do not feel that it is a good idea to call for censorship of these ideas. There is no way to control where to stop censorship once it starts. Brian Mahoney "Get some water there is a flaming liberal" Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com