From: dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Summary: Try again
Date: 14 Nov 92 14:33:05 GMT
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: Data Factory Services, Harrisburg, Pa.

In article <1992Nov5.093422.9688@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
> 
> 
> 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.  

When AT&T is looking at possible legal liabilities the moral argument
falls by the wayside. They are, essentially, covering their asses and I
can't blame them a bit in this case. 

It's getting tiring to see instant decrees of "Censorship" whenever
something like this pops up. Very tiring. 

> Unless it is shown that John's postings have damaged AT&T financially,
> John should not be discriminated against based on his personal views.

He is NOT being discriminated against. See above statement. Protecting
legal liability is prudent. Remember, the sign on the building says
"AT&T" and NOT "DiNardo Communications Inc"

> 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.

Will the government (our government - we the people) protect AT&T from
possible legal action should a copyright holder take umbrage with what
John has been posting? I kinda doubt it.

> 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.

As long as the society you are referring to is as litigious as has been
demonstrated in the past few years I would be willing to bet you will 
see even more "control" that is, in reality, an excercise in self
preservation. 

> 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.

Oh for pete's sake. "The sky is falling! Run and hide!" Be vigilant,
yes. But TRY and learn the difference between legal prudence and
"censorship". The way some people on here toss that word around it
sounds like a damnm mantra that they depend on for sustenance

-- 
 ...uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave -or-                       |  Dave Ratcliffe  |
 frackit!dave@uunet.UU.NET -or- dave@frackit.uucp -or-   |  Sys. <*> Admin. |
 vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu            | Harrisburg,  Pa. |
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk