Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Summary: Comments
Message-ID: <3934@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 20 Apr 89 19:59:06 GMT
References: <14130@gryphon.COM< <8132@chinet.chi.il.us< <1216@frog.UUCP< <8251@chinet.chi.il.us>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 96

In article <8251@chinet.chi.il.us>, patrick@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick A. Townson) writes:

> When 911 service was being installed
> in Chicago ...  one of the stated advantages was that 
> emergency personnel would
> see a print out with the telephone number and address where the call was
> being placed.The old system did not provide this informaation ...
> 
> The ALCU *sued to keep 911 out of Chicago*, using as the basis for their
> argument, rightly rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court, that people
> had the right to speak anonymously with emergency service providers if 
> they wanted to do so, and thus, 911 'invaded their privacy and chilled
> their free speech.'

Aside from the fact that one *should* have the right to anonymity --
rather than a presumption of guilt which the referenced posting
seems to imply -- there is a very *pragmatic* reason to oppose
the phone number and address of a caller to 911 being automatically
being made available to the agency being called.

A lot of people are scared of retaliation for reporting a crime.
If they can report one anonymously, tho, they would be more
willing to.  Fear that a perpetrator will somehow discover
their identity, however, will indeed 'chill' their civic-
mindedness.


> 
> The ACLU has argued that the Federal Communications Commission should be
> abolished -- even its technical standards operations. They say everyone
> should have to the right to own a radio transmitter if they so choose, tune
> it wherever they choose, broadcast whatever they want to broadcast and
> be unrestricted in the power output. And may the best man be heard above
> the rest. 

There is considerable evidence that the Federal Censorship Commission
was a supply with no demand -- demand in the sense of a real
need -- that things were working smoothly, and conflicts, when
they arose, being resolved smoothly.  What the FCC has tended to
do is to concentrate broadcast resources in the hands of Big
Business, discouraging competition.  The semi-deregulation of
recent years has been of tremendous help in providing more
variety.  I'm surprised, and gratified, that the ACLU would
actually favor abolishing a Federal bureaucracy.  Can we get
them to extend that to some others -- such as the  IRS?


> 
> The example which comes immediatly to mind with technical trade secrets
> ( I use that phrase for lack of a better term coming to mind) was the 1970
> case "Pacific Telephone vrs. Ramparts Magazine".  Ramparts announced in
> one issue that in the next issue they would print the algorythm, or 
> mathematical formula for creating *valid* (acceptable to the computer)
> telephone credit card billing numbers.
> 
> AT&T, and their telco subsidiaries were incensed, and went to court to get
> an order to *completely bar the publication* of this information. They were
> successful at the last minute (the issue had already been printed and
> distribution was underway) in barring such speech, resulting in the court
> ordering distribution be halted and all issues collected back up and 
> destroyed.
> 
> And who do you think defended Ramparts Magazine?  Who else. And the
> arguments presented? '....a dangerous precedent...chilling effect on
> free speech...they can't be stopped from publishing their magazine...'
> But the court ruled indeed, there were valid reasons not only for
> punishing speech after the fact, but banning it from being made in the
> first place under some circumstances.

As much as I despised Ramparts Magazine, I tend to agree with the ACLU
on this one, too.  Look at what else was suppressed along with
the formula (this is *not* an indication of approval of that
other material!  Ramparts was both pro-collectivist and elitist,
and I once wrote them a letter pointing out that they were loaded
with, uh, digestive system byproduct).  I think a more appropriate 
course of action would have been a civil suit.

The ACLU is far from perfect.  They fought for years against the
2nd Amendment, they tried to force that young Russian child to
go back to Russia, they won't fight jury conscription, they
don't seem to care enough about letting "third" parties on the
ballot, and they seem more willing to defend zanies than non-
zanies with equally pressing problems.  But they do a lot of
very valuable work, and I hate to think what shape the 1st, 4th,
and 5th Amendments would be in without them.

Para un Tejas Libre,

Jeff Daiell


-- 
       "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those 
   who, in times of moral crisis, preserved their neutrality."

                                        -- Dante