From: guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:34:22 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH



In <4NOV199213021375@csa1.lbl.gov>
  sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>I certainly concede that AT&T is within its rights to restrict access to
>its hardware.  The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to use
>other people's property to excersize your right to free speech.

 You are probably correct in that AT&T is within its legal rights,
but I would argue that it is morally unjustifiable for AT&T to restrict
electronic speech purely on the grounds of its political content.  In this
case we have a conflict between the rights of two parties:  AT&T's property
rights vs. John DiNardo's basic human right to express himself freely.
Unless it is shown that John's postings have damaged AT&T financially,
John should not be discriminated against based on his personal views.

>But I wonder if this is really the best state of affairs.  The Founding
>Fathers worded the First Amendment at a time when free speech only
>required a loud voice and a rock to stand on.  It's not that simple
>today.  Can a person truly have the right to express his opinions to his
>fellow Americans if he does not have access to the dominant method of
>communication?

>You may say that the Founding Fathers, did not, for example, guarantee
>everyone equal access to a printing press.  But printing only supplements
>communications.  The computer networking revolution may have a much more
>profound effect on the structure of society and the way that we communicate
>to one another.

   You raise some excellent points here.  Usenet serves the purpose of
an electronic streetcorner, where we are all free to stand on our
soapbox and express our views.  In this age of suburban sprawl and
privately-owned malls, there exists preciously few other such public
forums where the average person is free to speak out.  I am amazed at
how many other people on the net are willing to give it all up and
submit to censorship.

  Another state of affairs that the Founding Fathers could scarcely
have imagined is the complex interdependence that exists today between
large corporations and the State.  AT&T has been granted many special
privileges by government legislation (our government - we the people),
and has been partly subsidized in many ways, both directly and indirectly,
by our tax dollars.  I don't think it's asking too much of them to bear
a little social responsibility and recognize the basic human rights of
its employees.

> [...]

>As high-technology communications become more and more important to the
>way our society operates, the way we reach politcal consensus, etc., we
>may find that we have much less free speech than we want, if we do not
>change the rules.

  If large corporations like AT&T would act responsibly, no rule changes
would be necessary.  New legislation is only needed to correct an
existing injustice.  Unfortunately, judging by the case of John DiNardo,
the powers that control access to mass media in this country will
continue to act in their own narrow self-interest, to the detriment
of our society as a whole.  It is my belief that we are already below the
threshold of free communication necessary to support a long-term successful
democracy.  Publicly-accessible unmoderated computer network forums are
like a flower in the mass media wasteland, but one that will be soon crushed
by the censor's boot unless we remain vigilant.

  Support John DiNardo!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 I wrote the following letter to his sysadmin:

To:  postmaster@cbnews.att.com

I am writing to you to express my support of John DiNardo and his recent
posts to the Usenet.  Though I do not always agree with John, I am very
impressed by the effort that he puts into his posts, and by his concern
in disseminating what he feels to be important information.  The prestige
of AT&T Bell Laboratories is enhanced by allowing its employees to
communicate their personal views freely in forums such as NetNews.
Reasonable people realize that when John DiNardo posts from an AT&T site,
he is not speaking for AT&T but only for himself.  In my eyes, the
reputation of AT&T Bell Laboratories is severely damaged by attempts
to restrict NetNews access for its employees solely on the basis of
political content.  I would urge you as a system administrator to
support your fellow employees in the face of complaints and attacks by
self-appointed net.censors  Thank you for your time.

   -Guy Schiavone

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reference:

>From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
>Subject: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
>Message-ID: <1992Oct30.144943.15390@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>
>Date: 30 Oct 92 14:49:43 GMT
>Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
>
>I received the following warning this morning:
>
>*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
>To: jad@ckuxb.att.com
>~Date: Thu, 29 Oct 92 09:58:20 EST
>~From: [deleted name of system administrator]  postmaster@att!cbnews
>Original-To: ckuxb!jad
>~Subject: Your postings to Netnews
>
>John DiNardo,
>  We are getting multiple pieces of e-mail to our root mailbox complaining
>about the rather verbose postings you are putting out to netnews to multiple
>newsgroups.
>
> [...]
>
>  Secondly, I remind you of the following portion of the Netnews Policy
>Statement:
>
>       3.  In addition to protecting proprietary information, the
>           originator is responsible for ensuring that any information
>           posted to Netnews is consistent with AT&T's professional
>           standards with regard to content and conduct.  Material of
>           questionable taste or material that is potentially damaging
>           to the company's reputation or potentially offensive to
>           groups or individuals may not be posted to any newsgroup,
>           internal or external.
>
>
>I would contend that you are violating this portion of the AT&T Netnews Policy.
>I am not saying that you can not post this sort of material; I am, however,
>requesting that if you do so, do not do it from the machines which provide
>the supported Netnews Service to AT&T.
>
>The first step of our normal process when finding violations of the AT&T
>Netnews Policy is to alert the person to the violation. This message
>accomplishes this first step. If further violations occur after this
>initial warning, further measures will need to be taken, up to the potential
>cancellation of your account on the netnews servers.
>
>                                        [deleted name of system administrator]
>                                        AT&T
>                                        Netnews Service Engineer
> [...]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa