From: holbrook@apollo.HP.COM (Alan R. Holbrook)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:13:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

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

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

Rent a clue, Mr. Schiavone.  No one, repeat, NO ONE, at AT&T is making an effort
to restrict what DiNardo is saying.  They are making an effort to restrict his use of 
THEIR facilities to do so.  And there has been absolutely NO indication inferred or
confirmed that they do not treat ALL their employees exactly the same way.

        <more drivel...>

|>    You raise some excellent points here.  Usenet serves the purpose of
|> an electronic streetcorner, where we are all free to stand on our
|> soapbox and express our views.  In this age of suburban sprawl and
|> privately-owned malls, there exists preciously few other such public
|> forums where the average person is free to speak out.  I am amazed at
|> how many other people on the net are willing to give it all up and
|> submit to censorship.

Don't put words in my mouth, Mr. Schiavone, thank you very much!  You have no
concept about what I'm willing to put up with and how I feel about censorship.

As I said yesterday, I recognize HP's right to prevent me from using their facilities
to express personal opinions, in part because there are virtually unlimited
other means available, AS LONG AS I BELIEVE ENOUGH IN WHAT I'M SAYING TO PAY
MY OWN TAB.  The founding fathers, I am sure, did not have it in mind that ANY one
else be compelled to pay for a soapbox for others.

|>   Another state of affairs that the Founding Fathers could scarcely
|> have imagined is the complex interdependence that exists today between
|> large corporations and the State.  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.
|> 
|> > [...]
|>

Oh, I see, if it were a completely private company (whatever that may be) then you
wouldn't have any problem with them throttling an employee...?  What's that?  Did I
miss something?  Oh, dear...

Mr. Schiavone, it appears that you, like way too many of our citizens today, are
only too willing to bleat about rights without any concept of responsibilities.
You mention _several_ times Mr. DiNardo's rights; you never mention his res-
ponsibilities.  But AT&T has the moral low ground because they aren't showing any 
"social responsibility".

I'll go out on a limb here and tell you what _I_ think the founding fathers intended:  I
think they intended us to be responsible for our own actions and to expect to pay the
price when our views conflict with someone elses.

Get it straight again, fella', DiNardo can say what he wants to whom he wants.  And I can
read it or throw it away or ignore it or forward it or agree with it or whatever!  But
don't try to tell me it is his right to use the system of his choice with no restrictions.
If you think unlimited access to the electronic forum, no matter where that access is
available, is your inalienable right, try to come to my house and get on my system...

        <yet more drivel...>
|> 
|>    -Guy Schiavone

Alan Holbrook
holbrook@apollo.hp.com
No .sig, I just post on impulse.