Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!nosc!cod!rupp
From: rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: To Post or Not To Post... That's the Moral Issue
Message-ID: <818@cod.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 8-Sep-87 13:10:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: cod.818
Posted: Tue Sep  8 13:10:42 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Sep-87 06:15:44 EDT
References: <1111@ark.cs.vu.nl>
Reply-To: rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp)
Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego
Lines: 23

------
Here goes, for the (I really and truly do hope) last time.......

My objection to the phone phreaking article was that the author seemed
to me to have no moral stand on the practice of phreaking.  That
bothered me for several reasons, reasons which I believe I listed in an
earlier followup.  I was merely attempting to point out that I, at
least, felt that some mention of the author's omission should be added
to the discussion.  That's it.  No more, no less.  I do not feel that
the subject should not be discussed.  I do not even feel that an article
that is offensive (to some readers) should be banned.  Who would do the
banning, for gosh sakes?!  

I don't understand why the Moral Majority and censorship should be
brought into this.  You have the right to say you like apples, and I
have the right to say that apples are terrible.  Freedom of speech does
not mean that no one may dissent from the speaker's views.  Therefore,
my objection was just as legitimate as the original poster's article.  

======================================================================
I speak for myself, and not on behalf of any other person or organization
.........................How's that, Gary?
======================================================================