Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!ucbvax!rutgers!husc6!ncsuvx!uwmcsd1!bbn!cc5.bbn.com!denbeste From: denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: There is no right to access to USENET. Message-ID: <618@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> Date: Fri, 25-Sep-87 13:04:59 EDT Article-I.D.: cc5.618 Posted: Fri Sep 25 13:04:59 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 08:09:25 EDT Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA Lines: 90 [Line-eater, don't restrict my freedom of speech...] As a strict matter of precedent, the first amendment says, in part: "Congress shall make no law...restricting freedom of speech, nor of the press,.." A later amendment makes this apply to the states as well, and there is a strict constitutional precedent which applies it to the presidency and the executive branch. But there are some interesting and little known ramifications of this. All of the following discussion until further notice will deal with strict interpretation of the constitution: Freedom of speech and of the press (and also of a trial by jury and other freedoms) don't apply to people in the military. That is covered by another section of the constitution, which the courts have ruled to take precedence. Radio and Television are not covered. The FCC has absolute power under the FCC act of 1938 to control what is broadcast. The "Fairness doctrine" (which may soon be rescinded) which forces Radio and Television to present both sides of an issue is a simple ruling by a US commission. It has no eternal constitutional basis. I don't have a right to demand bandwidth on any particular print forum. If I dislike something that Newsweek writes, I have no right to demand "equal time". Such things don't apply to print media. The constitutional assumption is that if I don't think my point of view is being represented, I will buy a printing press and print my OWN magazine/newspaper. Which leads to the next interesting point: I have a right to free speech, but I don't have a right to demand that anyone listen. They have a right to ignore me. If I start my own magazine to rebut Newsweek, I have no right to force Newsweek's readers to read my own magazine, too. Now that is the strict constitutional precedent. On a much more informal basis there is a long history of a much broader interpretation of freedom of speech: Whereas magazines and newspapers don't HAVE to present multiple viewpoints, most do anyhow out of conscience. They publish letters from those who disagree, and deliberately seek out somewhat differing views. However, many magazines have distinct leanings: It is unlikely that there is any author who has been published in both "The Progressive" and "The National Review". The only check is that of the market place: If a magazine's viewpoint is sufficiently unpopular, no-one will read it. So we come to USENET. I state that there is no "right" to access to USENET. I claim that the analogy of USENET is to a magazine (where the owners have absolute constitutionally-granted control over behavior) instead of to television (where there is a rule mandating equal treatment of viewpoints). The decision of what the computers and telephone charges of USENET are used for is solely and completely made by those who pay the bills, or designated representatives of them, and they are responsible to no-one for the basis on which those decisions are made. They have, in the past, been very generous with their grant of the privilege of access to USENET, but they don't HAVE to be. The gentleman (perhaps I'm being presumptuous on two counts here: "gentle" and possibly also from recent discussion "man") who was kicked off was apparently done so because of particularly extreme behavior - but even if it weren't for such a thing, we have no right to complain unless we choose to pay some of the bills at the site where the action was taken. I was kicked off of USENET in 1983 for a much less serious reason: I quit working for Tektronix and they quit reasonably decided that they didn't want a non-employee to have access to their machines. I was upset, but I couldn't frankly blame them. I make no judgement on the merits of the gentleman's disconnection for two reasons: I don't know all the details except for the wildly exagerated and conflicting descriptions I have read in this group, and frankly, I don't think they matter anyway. The SYSOP's have the right to terminate ANY of us ANY TIME they feel like it. ...Seems to me that the flames have been directed at my old friend and adversary Tim and not at the SYSOP that did the deed. Sort of "You taddle-tail!" Sort of like getting angry at the witness and not at the judge. If the decision was a wrong one, flame the SYSOP. If the decision was a right one, then don't flame anyone. -- Steven C. Den Beste Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA or CSNET or UUCP) harvard!bbn.com!denbeste (UUCP) I don't think BBN cares what I think about this stuff.