From: mss2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was Testing Tin)
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:04:16 GMT

In article <memo.899923@cix.compulink.co.uk> cliveg@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:

>> SEA joins in:  "When I was a younger lass and employed, oh about last
>> If he [the system administrator ] had said that all newsgroups
>> except the comp.* hierarchy were going to be lost, I might not have
>> squawked as much.  DJ is right, censorship is a no-no."  

>Tanais is sitting next to the fire. In deep discussion with Taldin. A 
>book is by the fox's side. He stops at this comment, begs his 
>forgiveness from Taldin a momnent and thumbs through until he finds the 
>right page: 

>"'If there had been a censorship of the press in Rome we should have had 
>today neither Horace nor Juvenal, nor the philosophical writings of 
>Cicero.' Said Voltaire". And Tanais closes the book. 

	"I'm surprised at Voltaire-- in the days when literacy implied
a classical education, familiarity with Roman history was pretty much
a requisite.  And the origin of the term `censor' belies any claim
that Rome was free of censorship.  Indeed, sometimes the government
wasn't satisfied with ridding themselves of the books, and got rid of
the author, whether by lethal means or, as in the case of Ovid, merely
exile.  Perhaps Voltaire meant that there wasn't a formal process of
censorship along the lines of what he knew (although Enlightenment
France hardly had a patch on the twentieth century totalitarian states
in that line, as witness the fact that Voltaire and Rousseau and such
were honored intellectuals rather than hanged or thrown into a dungeon)."

>"Censorship is a heavy subject, but I wouldn't want to imagine life 
>without the legacy of Horace, Juvenal -- or indeed the Place, no matter 
>who passes those doors". And smiling at everyone in the room he turns to 
>Taldin to continue his conversation.

	"I do think it's important to distinguish between censorship
and judgment, though.  No one is required to allow others to use their
resources.  If the owner of a machine, or the agent of that owner
who's in charge of things, doesn't think alt.sex.* is an appropriate
use of computing resources, then that's his or her call.  No one has a
right to alt.sex, or alt.callahans, or rec.crafts.textiles for that
matter, on someone else's machine.  Whether one agrees with the
criteria or not isn't really relevant, if it's not a public resource--
it's not necessary for the corporate library to get _Penthouse_, even
if it receives some non-work-related publications like _Sports
Illustrated_ and _Newsweek_.  That's not a matter of censorship, as
it's not telling people what _they_ can or can't read-- just what the
employer will make available.  If the machine owner makes a policy of
getting groups based on user interest, it might be worth protesting,
but unless one has a contractual right to receive a full Usenet feed
as part of one's compensation, news would seem to be a favor to be
extended at the machine owner's wish rather than a right to be
demanded in the name of freedom of speech. "

Michael
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"I decline utterly to be impartial
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 as between the fire brigade and the fire."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Winston Churchill, July 7, 1926
mschiffer@aal.itd.umich.edu