From: wix@eskimo.celestial.com (Dennis Wicks)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 02:43:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.194926.693@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>
>In <1992Nov5.193727.27547@u.washington.edu>
>  tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>>guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>>>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.
>
>>There are dozens of Usenet sites that would be happy to give DiNardo
>>access to express himself.  Some are free.  Some charge a few dollars
>>a month.  Some charge more.  He has had no right interfered with.
>>
>>--Tim Smith
>
>  I have seen this argument put forth several times and I would like
>to address it.  I find the fact that there may or may not exist other
>sites that provide John DiNardo access totally irrelevent to
>the issue at hand.
>
> The following is an illustration of my point.  I currently reside in the
>State of New Hampshire.  Let's say the State of New Hampshire implements
>an amendment to its constitution that eliminates my right to free speech.
>Could they justify this amendment on the grounds that I could always
>travel to Vermont to speak freely, and thus, they are not *really* denying
>my right to free speech?  Of course not.
> 
> The issue at hand is whether a large corporation should be
>allowed to selectively impose on the basic rights of its employees, with
>the effect that only those political beliefs deemed acceptable by the
>corporation are expressed.  I believe that such policies damage our society
>and our system of democracy.  I also believe that the corporations have
>a responsibility to aid and work within our system of democracy.  Therefore,
>I believe that AT&Ts decision to silence John DiNardo is irresponsible.  It
>is also unjust in that no financial cost has been incurred by AT&T due
>to the specific content of John DiNardo's posts.  AT&T is practicing a
>form of censorship that has no place in a free and democratic society, and
>I look forward to the day when such practices are eliminated, either
>voluntarily or by force of law.
>
>   -Guy Schiavone

Well, my Latin is non-existent, but this sounds to me like something
that might be called "expando ad absurdum," expanding the issue to
an absurd level.  AT&T or Joe's Hoagys and Software has no obligation
to furnish their employees with a public forum for expressing the
employee's personal views, whether the forum at issue is USENET or
the company auditorium.  If they choose to do so, for a selected few
or for all of them, then that is the company's choice, and they can
change their minds at any time, that is their choice again.

And this has nothing to do with whether or not the state of New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, or Alaska passes a law prohibiting 
anything.  There is no analogy.

John DiNardo is free to get a dumb terminal and a modem and 
become a member of any organization he wants to that provides
USENET newsfeeds, just as he is free to obtain a mimeograph
or printing press and publish and distribute his opinions.
If he wants to, he can even get a PC and become his own USENET
site.  

If this hasn't already been pointed out, it probably will be. 
There is no constitutional requirement that anyone, government,
business, your neighbors, et al, have to furnish you with the
means or the place to exercise your right of free speech.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa