From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Banned Computer Material 1992
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:10:41 GMT

In article <92275.104628HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> Hank Nussbacher <HANK@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:

>Assume that sex/porn/necrophilia are all grounded in the rule of free speech
>and that indeed some universities are trampling on the free speech rights of
>their students.  I somehow don't understand the two examples above - how does
>this impinge the rights of their free speech?  Let us take the first example:
>suppose I carry a handgun tucked under my shirt.  I have not used it and don't
>intend to use it.  What right does anyone have to stop me and take away my gun
>when I enter their building?  I assume you see the sarcasism.

How is a handgun like speech concerning "sex/porn/necrophilia"?

>In the 2nd
>example: suppose I wish to determine the 1,000,000,000th digit of PI.  I really
>want to know.  I run a program to figure it out.  The computer center sees
>an incredible use of CPU time from my account over the past 48 hours.  They
>kill my program - and I take them to court suing them under the bill of
>rights that they are taking away my freedom of expression.

How is running a program the same as speech?

>>+ Europe:
>>
>>Newsgroups at *many German universities* that discuss sex, including
>>discussion of recovery from sexual abuse
>...
>>Netnews discussion in *Ireland* of abortion
>...
>>Netnews discussion via Switzerland's SWITCH of gay rights, of drugs
>>and drug policy, and of sex and recovery from sexual abuse. Also,
>>United Press International articles related to terrorism or sex
>...
>>All on-line political or religions "activism" at *Middle East
>>Technical University in Turkey*
>...
>>Newsgroups alt.sex*, alt.drugs, alt.evil, alt.tasteless and
>>rec.arts.erotica on *UKNet*
>>     UKNet is an academic network in the United Kingdom.
>
>Unless I am mistaken, the US Bill of Rights which include the right to
>free speech, etc. has not been accepted as the Bill of Rights to the World.

Hank, you imply here that freedom of speech is solely an American concern.
But freedom of speech has its advocates in every one of the countries
mentioned here. Want proof? Try reading INDEX ON CENSORSHIP (a British
publication).

>Have you checked that each of these countries (Ireland, Turkey, etc.) have
>a law of free speech as the US does?

What relevance does "a law of free speech" have in this context? Carl
Kadie wasn't saying that the censorship in other countries was illegal; he
was merely saying that it occurred.

>The reason I am extremely annoyed is that this is not the first time that
>people in the USA assume that the entire world has to jump in line to their
>definitions of how the world should work.

It is unclear to me why you assume that only U.S. citizens care about
freedom of speech.

>No wonder that American foreign
>policy around the world has nose-dived in the past 20 years.  Why do you
>think people demonstrate against the "Great Satan" in Iran or Indochina
>or the Phillipines?  Americans are extremely insensitive to cultures other
>than their own.  Your posting is a very good example that things have not
>changed.

I think it is a little premature to attribute the failures of American
foreign policy to Carl Kadie.



--Mike




-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact 
mnemonic@eff.org| of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, 
(617) 864-0665  | both are transformed."
EFF, Cambridge  |                           --Carl Jung 
Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship