Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-lcc!mordor!joyce!cslb!fernwood!asylum!oli-stl!tekbspa!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: news.misc
Subject: Re: Freedom of hate
Message-ID: <1225@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 17 Apr 89 16:14:37 GMT
References: <14636@gryphon.COM# <1208@optilink.UUCP# <1607@blake.acs.washington.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 37

In article <1607@blake.acs.washington.edu>, gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
> In article <1219@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >But someone who works for the university administration (the editor)
> >decides, and it isn't censorship?  No, as long as a government agency
> >or its employees decides what goes in, and what doesn't, it's censor-
> >ship.
> 
> 	No.  Way.
> 
> 	There is no prior restraint.  There is no bar to starting up alternate
> voices.  There are established standards.  And as long as the editor follows

If the government gives away a student newspaper, and provides the money
to operate the student newspaper, while other newspapers aimed at the
same audience receive no government funding, is definitely an obstacle,
if not a bar, to starting up alternative voices.

> them, there isn't any "censorship".  Established practices, etc.

I might agree that editorial standards, as long as they are used in
a consistent and fair manner, might be acceptable -- but deciding
that a certain class of political remarks is unacceptable, while
allowing all others, is not.

> 	By this definition, any papers published by government agencies that
> are edited, such as US Geological Survey Research papers, California Division
> of Mines Geology  maps are censored items.  I find that hard to believe.

If papers of a political nature were regularly carried, yet papers
advocating one particular political view were regularly refused, this
would be 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!