Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!killer!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of speech
Summary: 1st Amendment, etc.
Message-ID: <3674@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 4 Apr 89 13:22:12 GMT
References: <439@corpane.UUCP> <3100@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1441@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 31

In article <1441@blake.acs.washington.edu>, gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:

> 	... But a site also has the right to encourage the second
> person to exercise his right at another site.  Or temporarily suspend #2's
> posting priviliges.  Or put #2 on probation.  
> 
> 	Legally, the rights of a system administrator to police his/her
> site has little to do with the First Amendment.  Only when an agent of
> the state, such as a state-run university, can we even entertain First
> Amendment arguements--and even then, only under certain conditions,
> depending on the terms access to posting was granted.
> 

I don't think the original posting made it clear the author was
strictly speaking of the net.  If that was the author's intent,
that's one thing.    But a blanket proclamation that 'offensive'
speech *in general* should be subject to censorship is
itself offensive -- but within the author's rights!

Just say NO to Big Brother.

Para un Tejas Libre,

Jeff Daiell



-- 
  If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
  Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.

                                   -- Don Paarlberg