Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!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
Summary: publisher's choice is not censorship
Keywords: First Amendment & usenet, does vs. should do
Message-ID: <1989Apr17.220348.15393@utpsych.toronto.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 89 22:03:48 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM# <8132@chinet.chi.il.us# <1216@frog.UUCP# <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu# <1215@optilink.UUCP>
Reply-To: raymond@psych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw)
Distribution: na
Organization: Psychology, U. of Toronto
Lines: 56

In article <1215@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:

>In article <1989Apr13.204004.19614@utpsych.toronto.edu#, raymond@utpsych.toronto.edu (Raymond Shaw) writes:
># 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.
>
>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?
>

Sure, it's simple:  a publisher does not censor a newspaper he publishes,
the government does so.  A censor does not censor what he publishes.  If
a government says, YOU may publish this, but not that, then this is censorship.
If a publisher says to the printer or editor, I'll not publish this but I
will publish that, then this reflects the publisher's choice.

Two things:  1.  someone else on this issue said that this dilemma is why
the revolutionary government of the US didn't publish a newspaper;
and  2.  a better analogy for usenet is a bulletin board in a Student Union
Building than a newspaper.  I agree with both of these:

that is, the government should not publish, because then whoever disagrees
with the editorial/publishing policy (which every paper must have; else
every loser who thinks he/she can write will claim censorship! if s/he
isn't published) will claim censorship;
and finally, that if a government body doesn't like what gets posted to
a bulletin board, then it must either ignore this problem completely or
stop everyone from using it at that facility.

ok?

-Raymond Shaw
raymond@psych.utoronto.edu