Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!tekbspa!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Keywords: First Amendment & usenet, does vs. should do
Message-ID: <1215@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 14 Apr 89 16:37:20 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM# <8132@chinet.chi.il.us# <1216@frog.UUCP# <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu#
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 71

In article <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu#, raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes:
# In article <8200@chinet.chi.il.us# patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:
# #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.

That's why we have the Bill of Rights -- to prevent the majority from
imposing its viewpoint on the minority.  Why can't "we" (the government)
pass laws to impose a particular religious or anti-religious belief
on others?  Why can't "we" pass laws to arbitrarily execute "bad
groups" (Jews, blacks, etc.) without trial or criminal actions?  Why
can't "we" pass laws allowing random searches of people's homes?

The Bill of Rights was intended not just as a defense of individual
rights from abuse by an undemocratic government, but also as a defense
of individual rights from a government too democratic.

If the government is going to provide any sort of forum for discussion,
it needs to provide it on an equal basis to ALL parties -- no matter 
how repugnant the content.  If they don't want to do it, they shouldn't
provide such a forum.  You may recall a while back one of the Mid-West
cities where a white supremacist group was taking advantage of a
"public access" cable channel, and a number of liberals in town were
trying to get these scum taken off the air, without having to give
up "public access" for everyone else.  

Sorry, guys.  The government is a monopoly.  Government-funded 
organizations, even if not a monopoly directly (universities, for 
example), are provided an unfair advantage since they receive money
from ALL the people.  Such organizations must provide ALL parties
an equal opportunity.  As offensive as such a concept is to liberals,
it IS the law of the land.

# 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.

Then get the government completely out of it.  I don't like paying
for hatred either -- and the government must inevitably pay for
dissemination of hatred, or get out of the public forum business.
(That includes universities, where academic freedom is the guise
for disseminating materials and ideas that promote race hatred and
class hatred).

# 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

Care to tell me how that is distinguished from censorship?


-- 
Clayton E. Cramer                   {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Governments that don't trust most people with weapons, deserve no trust.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!