Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Private networks and 1st amendments
Message-ID: <620@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 01:11:42 EST
Article-I.D.: brandx.620
Posted: Tue Nov 24 01:11:42 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Nov-87 00:10:42 EST
References: <1151@looking.UUCP>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 46

In article <1151@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> This has been said before, but it seems to need saying again.  This is
> a privately controlled network.  Bills of rights, such as the 1st amendment
> to the US Constitution do not apply here.

Clearly it is wrong to say this is a ``privately controlled'' network.
Individual sites in the network may be ``privately controlled'' (although
many are government (local, state, and fed -- educational and military)),
but it is hard to think of the network as controlled at all, much less
privately controlled.

> Both our charter of rights and the your constitution forbid religious
> persecution, for example.  But I still have the right to stop somebody from
> using my machine to post pro-Christian articles.  And other machine owners
> have the right to forbid articles about "pot-smoking jews."

Hmmm.  You mention that you are the employer of some of the users of
your machine.  I am not sure if it is true in your case, but let us
consider a person running on a machine that is owned by the company
for which they work -- so that it can reasonably be viewed as part of
the work environment.  Assume everyone in the office has Hanukkah
decorations up except one person who wants to put up a small cross.
Do you think that has an employer you could successfully prevent this
should it be taken to court?

Although I am not a lawyer, I suspect that the only way you could
prevent the person from putting up the cross would be to issue a
general edict forbidding religious decorations (i.e., forbidding the
Hanukkah decorations as well).  Certainly in the United States, there
seems to be an under-riding notion of ``equal'' treatment of all
employees.  So, I suspect that you would have difficulty (at least in
the United States) with the notion of forbidding generic pro-Christian
postings.  While abusive/offensive postings would probably be more
easily controlled, there would probably still be some notion of
sufficient ``due process'' that would probably make it easier (in a
large company) to disconnect rather than isolate specific users.

Clearly, by firing a person, a company puts itself in a position where
it can deny access to its computers and hence the net via that site.
And clearly many people would opt for losing net access rather than
being fired.  However, if the grounds are insufficient for firing, it
is not clear that they would be sufficient for denying net access in a
situation where net access is viewed as part of the normal work
environment.  

--------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)