Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!ogccse!blake!gwangung From: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Freedom of hate Message-ID: <1629@blake.acs.washington.edu> Date: 18 Apr 89 23:52:00 GMT References: <14636@gryphon.COM# <1208@optilink.UUCP# <1607@blake.acs.washington.edu> <1225@optilink.UUCP> Reply-To: gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang) Distribution: na Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 51 In article <1225@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >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. Granted, IF there is no way for startup papers to get money from the university. On the campuses I've been on, there have been ways to do so that are relatively free of politicking. >> 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. I can agree there. However, if taken far enough, this arguement would take a college newspaper as a common carrier, legally, and I'm not quite sure that's supportable. Certainly, a paper can have a leftist editor and staff, with corresponding editorial and opinion page matter; as individuals, they should have the ability to exercise their right to speak. By the same token, this leftist staff should not (and usally doesn't) refuse to run well written letters opinion with a rightist view. However, this principle should not force a staff to run poorly written, poorly thought out pieces just to "balance" the paper. Conversely, this should apply to a rightist staff where a poorly written leftist article is concerned. >> By this definition, any papers published by government agencies that >If papers of a political nature were regularly carried, yet papers >advocating one particular political view were regularly refused, this >would be censorship. Agreed.