Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Private networks and 1st amendments
Message-ID: <1561@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 02:32:07 EST
Article-I.D.: van-bc.1561
Posted: Tue Nov 24 02:32:07 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Nov-87 02:08:49 EST
References: <1151@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Public Access Network, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 78

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.
>
>I own a machine.  I let my employees and some friends read news on it.
>Don't even think for one second that I don't have every right to revoke
>that ability at any time for any reason.   I can't terminate employment
>for any reason, but I and any other system adminstrator can control access
>to our computers as we wish.

I'm not so sure that what the net is becoming is something a bit different
from anything we've seen before. While the above comparison to property
rights in general may have been valid in the past it may not continue to be
so. Remember we live in a constantly evolving society. Good or bad, peoples
perceptions and expectations continually change and many times laws (both
legislative and judge made) change to conform. An excellent example is the
relaxation of pornography laws in North America over the last 50 years.

In the case of the net the is a new perception (by some people) that people 
are indeed participating in a forum that is unrestricted except by *their* 
own values.  In other words they are actually implementing their *right* to 
free speech.

While this may not be to comfortable a position for some system
administrators who might like to choke off certain people (often I must
admit with *excellent* reasons, I'd do the same) we must look at the
possibility that we might not always have the *right* to restrict them in 
this fashion. 

There are many examples that show that our society has attempted to make it
easier for less well off individuals to indulge in free speech at the
expense of large organizations who could afford it. Letters to the editor,
equal time spots on TV, etc.

While I don't support this view I think there is some merit to it. Remember
no one is forcing you to make your machine available on the net either to
send or receive. But I think that if you are participating, you can't
prevent or restrain others from doing so via your system. It's not too much
different if you kick them off your system or try and filter out their
articles as they pass through your site, it's still censorship. 

Of course as a system administrator I am also still very worried about my
position if someone at my site post's something that could be viewed as
slanderous, or perhaps as hate literature. Could I be held accountable? I
would prefer to think that I'm not. What difference is there if the user 
post's it originally on my system, or via my system from a personal
computer running a mini news system, or if my system simply passes it
through as another anonymous forwarder. If I kicked the person of he could
probably find somewhere else to get access.

It really is a matter of defining better what positions the owners and
administrators of the machines that constitute the net *are* responsible and
getting that definition accepted by society and eventually the courts. The
two extremes are that the owners and administrators are totally responsible
but also have the right to censor or that they are not responsible but don't
have that right. I don't think that we will get the option to be able to
have complete control (other than withdrawal from the net) and be have the
right to censor articles. 

At what point would we be required to *start* censoring articles. For
example if someone created alt.hategroup on uunet and started posting
articles the automated news software on my machine would quite happily start
forwarding it to other sites in BC. Could I be held responsible? Well if I
have the right to censor articles, I probably also have the *duty* to do so.
And would then be responsible for the distribution of those articles.

As a person of limited time and energy I would prefer to not have the
*right* and *duty* to censor other peoples articles. In fact I think it
would prove to be impossible. If the consensur of societies opinion ever
reached that point I think it would be impossible to continue to forward
news to anyone. You simply couldn't effectively filter it for problem
articles. But if society expects that *individuals* have the right to free
speech and that the owners and system adminstrators do not have the right or
ability to censor articles that problem disappears.

-- 
{ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!Stuart.Lynne Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532