From: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
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: 7 Nov 1992 00:06:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ch981@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tony Alicea)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) says:
>The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to use
>other people's property to excersize your right to free speech.
>But I wonder if this is really the best state of affairs.  The Founding
>Fathers worded the First Amendment at a time when free speech only
>required a loud voice and a rock to stand on.  It's not that simple
>today.  Can a person truly have the right to express his opinions to his
>fellow Americans if he does not have access to the dominant method of 
>communication? 

No, but private corps don't have to pay for your or mine use of said 
method. The only way out I see is something like a NATIONAL toll free
number to call and be connected to the Internet for free (via taxpayers
money). Actually, something like that exists now (minus the toll free #)
and is called the CLEVELAND *FREENET* PROJECT (asterisks mine <grin>)  
Anyone can secure a *free* account and if you can dial in (or telnet, 
as I do) you have access to *all* the USENET newsgroups plus a formal
Internet mailbox (user@cleveland.freenet.edu) address. Of course the
capacity is limited but remember the effort is not one sponsored by
the US government.
>
>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.  Why not?
>

They can't refuse me service: That's because *I* am paying *them*.

>Why should we hold it responsible
>for messages send over its computer links?  
>
Nobody does. An employee using the facility to propagate his *personal*
views is another matter. He *is not* paying for access; it's free for him.

>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.
>

And my proposed solution is to have the Feds set up the equivalent of a 
			USA FREENET w/800 toll-free numbers.

Maybe now w/Clinton...
:-)
----------------------
Tony Alicea
Annapolis
>Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Reply-To: uunet!opel!slc1!crusty!ta
Followup-To:
Distribution: 
Keywords: 

In article <4NOV199213021375@csa1.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to use
>other people's property to excersize your right to free speech.
>But I wonder if this is really the best state of affairs.  The Founding
>Fathers worded the First Amendment at a time when free speech only
>required a loud voice and a rock to stand on.  It's not that simple
>today.  Can a person truly have the right to express his opinions to his
>fellow Americans if he does not have access to the dominant method of 
>communication? 

No, but private corps don't have to pay for your or mine use of said 
method. The only way out I see is something like a NATIONAL toll free
number to call and be connected to the Internet for free (via taxpayers
money). Actually, something like that exists now (minus the toll free #)
and is called the CLEVELAND *FREENET* PROJECT (asterisks mine <grin>)  
Anyone can secure a *free* account and if you can dial in (or telnet, 
as I do) you have access to *all* the USENET newsgroups plus a formal
Internet mailbox (user@cleveland.freenet.edu) address. Of course the
capacity is limited but remember the effort is not one sponsored by
the US government.
>
>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.  Why not?
>

They can't refuse me service: That's because *I* am paying *them*.

>Why should we hold it responsible
>for messages send over its computer links?  
>
Nobody does. An employee using the facility to propagate his *personal*
views is another matter. He *is not* paying for access; it's free for him.

>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.
>

And my proposed solution is to have the Feds set up the equivalent of a 
			USA FREENET w/800 toll-free numbers.

Maybe now w/Clinton...
:-)
----------------------
Tony Alicea
Annapolis
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk