From: michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald)
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: 4 Nov 92 21:54:56 GMT
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA

sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

>I certainly concede that AT&T is within its rights to restrict access to 
>its hardware...

>But I wonder if this is really the best state of affairs.  ...

[Explanation of why access to computer networks differs from printing
press, and how the world has generally changed since the Founding
Fathers brought forth: deleted]

>AT&T cannot refuse to rent you a telephone, or to give you phone service
>over its wires because it doesn't like what you have to say.  

From this analogy I think you might have missed the fact that the
original poster was an >employee< of ATT, not a customer?  And that
the complaint had nothing to do with the content of the postings
(except to the extent that it might violate US copyright laws and
involve the poster and ATT in legal issues).

Often companies don't let employees use (or abuse) company phones for
personal calls, except in the case of emergencies or "reasonable use":
Arrange transportation, deal with medical issues, etc.

I believe the rest of your post isn't relevant to the case at hand.
In any case, I believe that free speech protections >do<, or >should<,
apply to electronic media.  On the other hand, >this case< is similar
to the case of one customer of a service damaging the service for
other customers (chasing them away).  It wasn't done by an expression
of Free Speech, but rather by the (possibly unintentional) abuse of
the service (posting multiple copies with different headers).  The
response of ATT (a warning of official policy, and noting that if the
behavior persisted access through the company account would be
limited) was within ATT's rights, and did >not< involve the violation
of anyone's rights.

>                                                                Why not?
>Doesn't it reflect badly on AT&T that it lets people use its hardware
>to espouse radical, or unpopular, views?

The situation is sometimes viewed differently when those views are
expressed on ATT stationery.  The question is whether a return address
from ATT.COM represents ATT in some way.  This >is< an issue that
hasn't been addressed yet, disclaimers notwithstanding.

>                                        Why should it simply not
>let Nazis use AT&T's underground cables and switching centers? 

>Somehow, we have becomed accustomed as a society not to hold AT&T responsible
>for messages sent over its phone lines.  Why should we hold it responsible
>for messages send over its computer links?  Conversely, should we allow
>AT&T that excuse?  Might it not be better to extend free speech protections
>to all people who otherwise would have access to computer networks, absolving
>the owners of the hardware from responsibility for the message?  

>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.

>-Scott
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk