From: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:57:23 GMT

(Guy Schiavone) writes:

<Our exchange appended at the end.>

ATT should have posted the following notice to the general public,
instead of censoring some kinds of thought:

"AT&T neither shares nor is responsible for any opinions expressed
by ATT employees on USENET. ATT provides these facilities to ATT 
employees as a privilege to foster free exchange of information. If
you are offended by any opinion of an ATT employee, please take
it up with him/her or IGNORE such postings. ATT does not censor
postings or curb rights based on the nature of opinion. If an
ATT employee threatens bodily harm to any of you, it is a felony.
Please contact ATT System Adminstration immediately.""

(After reading Guy's reply, I am forced to changed my mind. A
complete volte-face.) 

I think JD's argument has some merit. While there is now law, such as 
affirmative action, to protect free speech, *even* if it is thanks to 
a company's hardware and software, Guy and John seem to argue that it 
should be.  Particularly when the company seems to make its facilities 
available to all employees and seem to curb those rights based on the 
*nature* of thought expressed. 

Obviously ATT is not monitoring all the information that is flowing
out of its computers as posted by its employees. It is giving a free
rein to all its employees and trusting them to use their best
judgment. ATT seems to have a problem only when an employee expresses
something that is widely disagreeable to folks outside. The
disagreement is because of the *nature of thought* the employee
expressed and not because of any other physical harm. ATT is essentially
saying "Your IDEA is hurting people outside. We don't want other
people to be hurt by your ideas, so kindly shut up!" I think this
is unfair and direct violation of free speech.

The point to be noted here is that nobody is forcing ATT to provide
net access to its employees. But IF IT DOES, it now appears to me that
it is unfair to curb some ideas solely because they are offending some
people outside. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about! 


Satya Prabhakar
>
>In <1992Nov7.120326.22035@news2.cis.umn.edu>
>  prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>(Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>>>In <1992Nov5.193727.27547@u.washington.edu>
>  tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>
>>>>guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>
>>>>>In this 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.
>
>>>>There are dozens of Usenet sites that would be happy to give DiNardo
>>>>access to express himself.  Some are free.  Some charge a few dollars
>>>>a month.  Some charge more.  He has had no right interfered with.
>>>>
>>>>--Tim Smith
>
>>>  I have seen this argument put forth several times and I would like
>>>to address it.  I find the fact that there may or may not exist other
>>>sites that provide John DiNardo access totally irrelevent to
>>>the issue at hand.
>
>
>>> The following is an illustration of my point.  I currently reside in the
>>>State of New Hampshire.  Let's say the State of New Hampshire implements
>>>an amendment to its constitution that eliminates my right to free speech.
>>>Could they justify this amendment on the grounds that I could always
>>>travel to Vermont to speak freely, and thus, they are not *really* denying
>>>my right to free speech?  Of course not.
>>
>
>>You are confusing the obligations of a STATE with those of a CORPORATION.
>
> No, you have missed the point.  I have included the entire exchange for
>you above, not just the one out-of-context quote of mine that you included
>in your original reply.  Note in the above that I am responding to
>Tim Smith's argument that "There are dozens of Usenet sites that would
>be happy to give DiNardo access to express himself... He has had no right
>interfered with."  Note my response in the above: "I find the fact
>that there may or may not exist other sites that provide John DiNardo
>access totally irrelevent to the issue at hand."
>
>  I am contending that Tim Smith has committed the fallacy of
>ignoratio elenchi.  His argument supports the conclusion that
>John DiNardo has not been denied free speech by *every* Usenet
>site.  His argument does nothing to support the conclusion that
>AT&T has not denied John DiNardo a right to speak.
>
>  Let me try another illustration of this point, involving corporations,
>if you wish.  Let's say that I am seeking a job, and I am not a white
>anglo-saxon protestant male.  I apply for a job to company X and, during
>the interview I am told, "Sorry, we have an opening in your field, but we
>only hire white anglo-saxon protestant males.  However, I know that
>company Y, down the road, will hire you."  I then apply for a job at
>company Y and I am hired.
>
>Question: Could company X claim that they had NOT violated my civil
>          rights, on the grounds that company Y hired me?
>
>Parallel Question:  Can AT&T claim that they have NOT silenced John
>                    DiNardo, on the grounds that the Turing Project
>                    has offered John DiNardo Usenet access?
>
>
>>> The issue at hand is whether a large corporation should be
>>>allowed to selectively impose on the basic rights of its employees, with
>>>the effect that only those political beliefs deemed acceptable by the
>>>corporation are expressed.  I believe that such policies damage our society
>>>and our system of democracy.  I also believe that the corporations have
>>>a responsibility to aid and work within our system of democracy.  Therefore,
>>>I believe that AT&Ts decision to silence John DiNardo is irresponsible.
>
>>Corporations do have the responsibility to work within our system
>>of democracy and grant absolute freedom to its employees. But
>>this is only as long as the company does not deem the actions of
>>its employees (mostly when they are at work and sometimes even
>>outside) detrimental to its interests.
>
> "Detrimental to its interest" as determined by whom?  By what
>measure?  I think your term is much too vague.  I would amend your
>statement to read "The exercise of an employees basic rights should
>not cause measurable financial harm to the corporation".
>
>>Let us take two examples:
>>1. Suppose a guy and his girl friend at work pet each other and do
>>   soft porn stuff during lunch hour in public. Now, the STATE has
>>   no right to interrupt their libidinous bliss. Does a COMPANY
>>   have the right to ask them to cool it?
>>
>>2. Does a company have the right to forbid employees from doing
>>   part-time work that competes with the company's business itself?
>>
>>My answer is: YES, unless you have any other. This is because a
>>corporation is not a state and need not respect all rights that
>>the state may respect.
>
> Well, we seem to agree that corporations must have at least
>some respect for both the rights of its employees and also the rights
>of the citizens of the country in general.  The question is how
>we solve conflicts that arise between the rights of a corporation
>and the rights of its employees?  I have stated my solution above.
>What is yours?
>
>(Also, I do not understand your example #1, above.  What do you mean
> by "in public"?  In a public park, perhaps?  And what exactly is
> "soft porn stuff"?)
>
>>Maybe this gentleman who thinks his freedom of speech is curbed should
>>take a 3 month leave of absence from ATT and tour the country in his
>>car and give speeches in front of the City Hall. Surely ATT should have
>>no problem with that!
>
>Well, you might be wrong here.  AT&T is probably under no legal obligation
>to grant DiNardo long-term leave of absence, unless it is in his contract.
>Do you believe that they should be?
>
>>Satya Prabhakar
>
>
>>>It is also unjust in that no financial cost has been incurred by AT&T due
>>>to the specific content of John DiNardo's posts.  AT&T is practicing a
>>>form of censorship that has no place in a free and democratic society, and
>>>I look forward to the day when such practices are eliminated, either
>>>voluntarily or by force of law.
>
>
>   -Guy Schiavone


Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa