Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!gondor.cs.psu.edu!hoffman
From: hoffman@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Richard C. Hoffman)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Message-ID: <4463@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 89 05:39:07 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM> <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> <1216@frog.UUCP> <8200@chinet.chi.il.us>
Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu
Reply-To: hoffman@gondor.cs.psu.edu (Richard C. Hoffman)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: na
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 120

In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
>
>No, he simply unlawfully and unconstitutionally refused to allow him to
>participate in a forum maintained on government owned computing machinery
>at a government owned facility on the basis of a speech that he made. 
>
>Are you forgetting that Mr. Verity is employed by the government of the state
>of Pennsylvania? He is employed to help maintain a *government owned*
>facility where historically a forum has been permitted to take place, and
>where qualified participants have been permitted to speak?
>
>And like the government of Skokie, the government of Pennsylvania, and its
>authorized representatives do not have the constitutional authority to 
>prevent people from expressing their ideas in public in a peaceable
>assembly. Had Whitehead tried to use your personal computer or mine, we
>General Motors. They are privately owned. The PSU computer is owned by
>the government, and routinely made available to qualified members of the
>public. 

     [etc., etc., etc.]

     I've been able to ignore this for a week now, and the B.S. level has
finally hit my limit.  Pardon my weakness.

     BTW, Patrick, notice the follow-up: line.  If you're going to produce
noise, at least keep it in a noise group.  


    So your entire argument rests on the basis that The Pennsylvania State
University is owned and operated by the State of Pennsylvania?  Before you
waste gigabits of bandwidth, at least make sure your basic assumptions are
correct, ok?
 
    The Pennsylvania State University is a land-grant institution, not a
State University (I know, the name confuses it, but try to keep up, alright?)
On July 2, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Land Grant
Act, offering free land to the states which they could then *sell* to
institutions of higher learning where, "the leading object shall be, . . .
to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the
mechanic arts. . .in order to promote the liberal and practical education
of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions of life."

    Summary: PSU is not "the government" you keep whining about, has never
been "the government," and Bill Verity in the Center for Academic Computing
is not an "agent" for "the government."  "The government" does not own the
computing machinery used here, and has no part in running any such 
machinery.  Penn State has *exactly* the same legal status as Temple
University and The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt).  Would you claim the
same points for *those* institutions?  As an aside, I would suggest that
you take a look at a recent civil case in which Temple University
successfully defended its right to deny the KKK access to one of its
auditoriums, on the grounds that the auditorium was a "limited resource,"
and that the Temple student body would be more interested in seeing some
other group use the facility.  Another aspect of the case was the fact   
that payment for services of facilities was involved, unlike, say, most
public high school gymnasiums.  Not *directly* applicable, but it
*is* a case where an institution which received federal and state funding,
exactly as PSU does, was justified legally in denying use of its
facilities based entirely upon the opinions held by some person or group
wishing to use those facilities.  Now, I don't have the case right in
front of me, so you may wish to look it up yourself.

     If your position has any merit whatsoever, it is because PSU receives
some amount of State funding, and some federal grants (the amount and
percentage of the total budget filled by those funds are unimportant, the
critical factor here is that PSU gets *some* "government" money, as 
opposed to "no" "government" money).  This acceptance of such funding
requires PSU to adhere to federal and state anti-discrimination laws,
specifically, 
     "The Pennsylvania State University, in compliance with federal and
state laws and regulations governing affermative action and nondiscrimination,
does not discriminate in the recruitment, admission, and employment of
students, faculty and staff in the operation of any of its educational
programs and activities as defined by law.  Accordingly, nothing in any 
publication produced by The Pennsylvania State University should be viewed
as directly or indirectly expressing any limitation, specification, or
discrimination as to race, religion, color, or national origin; or to 
handicap, age, sex, or status as a disabled or Vietnam-era veteran, except
as provided by law."
     Note that this decription does not include sexual orientation among
prohibited reasons for discrimination--this is due to the fact that PSU 
copies the federal requirement to the letter, and the federal requirement
does not yet include such language.  PSU covers sexual orientation under
its "Acts of Intolerance" policy, which states that acts of intolerance
towards clearly identifiable groups or the act of inciting such       
intolerance is reason for disciplinary action towards responsible      
individuals.  You can argue about whether such a policy is constitutionally
valid, but that's a seperate point.
     The important fact here is that you have consistently missed the point.
If you had based your arguments upon the fact that PSU receives federal
funding, and thus must not violate federal non-discrimination policies, I
might feel some need to respond to them.  As it is, with your repetitive
insistance that PSU is "the government" and that Bill Verity is an agent
of "the government," both of which are clearly incorrect facts, you just 
come off looking quite ignorant, as if you were continuing to argue just
for the sake of argument, and for the attention you get from such a
discussion.

     In short, please stop wasting bandwidth on subjects which you know
nothing about.  You stated your opinion quite a while ago.  If I'm not
mistaken, it goes something like, "Boy, I really hate what I see as 
censorship as expressed in the suspension of James Whitehead's account
by Bill Verity, and I really think that stinks."  Ok, fine.  We've
heard it.  You've expressed your opinion.  Thank you.  Now kindly shut
up, at least in this group.  You're not costing me a cent, but somebody is
footing the bill for the continuation of this bootless discussion.

     If you really, really feel the burning need to continue this       
discussion, and have huge amounts of spare time available, with just
*nothing* else to do, at least take to alt.flame, ok?

			There, I'm all ranted out.

			Richard C. Hoffman


Disclaimer:  I am not in any way an official or unofficial representitive
of The Pennsylvania State University, and any policies or opinions
presented here do not necessarily represent official PSU positions.
I just live here.  And probably not for long, either.