Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!me!radio.astro!helios!utpsych!raymond
From: raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Keywords: First Amendment & usenet, does vs. should do
Message-ID: <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 89 20:40:04 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM> <8132@chinet.chi.il.us> <1216@frog.UUCP> <8200@chinet.chi.il.us>
Reply-To: raymond@psych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw)
Distribution: na
Organization: Psychology, U. of Toronto
Lines: 89

In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us> patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
>In article <1216@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) writes:
>>Oh, you mean Mr. Verity had a group of campus policemen blackjack this fool
>>down at Campus Police headquarters in a windowless room?  [...etc...]
>
>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. 
>...  our government has no authority to squelch discussion of ideas ...
>
>>Mr. Verity simply
>>enforced Penn State's right not to pay for someone's odious behavior.
>
> ... Odious or not ... the government cannot bar someone from making a speech.

We have a real dilemma here.  On the one hand, as Townson points out well
(and repeatedly (-:) the government of the United States or of the individual
states cannot stop people from saying whatever they want (subject to certain
restrictions, according to some interpretors of the Constitution, see, e.g.,
an interesting debate on this in a recent issue of The Atlantic Monthly).

However, Townson continues... 

>Don't confuse the owner of the computer which Mr. Verity supervises with the
>owner of the computer in your home or mine; or the computer at AT&T or
>General Motors. They are privately owned. The PSU computer is owned by
>the government, and routinely made available to qualified members of the
>public. The government has to find some other legitimate reason to stop
>the use of the machine. Speech alone won't cut it.

But wait! The government is us; should it (we) pay for
the propagation of "hate literature?"  That is, the taxpayers of Pennsylvania
are paying for people to use this forum.

My basic concern here is that usenet is a new form of "speech", and rather
than interpreting the laws rigorously in all instances, one should consider
what is in the best interests on the public.  I don't want to pay for the
propagation of hate literature; on the other hand, I don't want to see the
government, or any part of it, become an editor or censor, because I want to
have the right to say what I want to say as well.

However, in this instance, the government (Penn State) is operating as a
publishing agent/publisher of the hate literature by Mr. Whitehead.  When
we set up part of the government as a publisher, then we have to grant to
that government the right to * act * as a publisher, and to edit or just
to determine what it will publish.  This is a tricky issue--there are lines
to be drawn.  Certainly Mr. Verity went too far in stopping Mr. Whitehead
from ever "submitting articles to be published;"  he should simply refuse
specific articles, if he wants to act as a discerning "publisher."
Unfortunately, this would mean reading every article which is posted.


>>Because the vast majority of people who own and pay for USENET machines don't
>>want (a) odious postings of this magnitude (b) in newsgroups where they
>>aren't welcome.

>...  The way to avoid an 'odious posting of
>this magnitude' is to not make it available for readers on your machine.

But isn't this exactly what you don't approve of?  Here you are asking the
sysadmins to act as editors/censors/publishers, which you are claiming they
cannot do.  Or are you agreeing with my point, that the government (assuming
a State-owned machine on which you are making postings available) should
indeed act as an editor when it is serving as one?


>Where the GOVERNMENT; i.e. in the issue at hand, Pennsylvania State
>University and its employee Verity are concerned, freedom of speech does 
>mean the right to say anything, anywhere, and anytime, when using government
>facilities which have historically been defined as a forum.
>
>Neither my living room, nor yours is a forum. Neither my living room, nor
>yours is a government owned place. Neither you or I, or any private 
>individual reading this message is obliged to assist someone else make a 
>'free speech'. The government is not obliged to help with it either, but
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>when by wilfull action or default a forum exists under the auspices of the
>government, then the government cannot stop the forum merely because of
>the speech. 

What the government can do, and what the government should are separate
issues.  On the one hand, you admit that the government (we, the people)
should not help propagate hate literature, but then say that it cannot
NOT help do so.  To repeat my point, the government is providing a forum,
and paying for it, and it is reasonable to suggest that perhaps the govern-
ment should not pay for the publishing of certain things.

-Raymond Shaw
raymond@psych.toronto.edu