From: guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa
Subject: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Keywords: censorship, corporate responsibility, human rights
Date: 22 Nov 92 20:09:53 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH



In <1992Nov6.191801.9394@scic.intel.com>
  sbradley@scic.intel.com (Seth Bradley) writes:

In article <1992Nov6.072244.25226@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (Guy Schiavone) writes:
>>  Also, judging by your choice of emphasis in the above, you seem
>>to imply that one must buy his or her right to free speech, as if
>>your adhere to the old "Money talks" maxim not just in its usual
>>figurative sense, but literally.  Suffice to say, I couldn't disagree
>>more.

>Lets try a little thought experiment.  Let's say we transport Mr. Schiavone
>back in time to when the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, was
>ratified.  Mr. Schiavone walks into a print shop, and demands that his
>political views be typeset and printed, as its within his First Amendment
>rights to do so.  Furthermore, he is under no obligation to pay for said
>printing work.  What do you think the print shop's owner would say?  Should
>he be obligated to meet Mr. Schiavone's demands?  As has been pointed out
>ad nauseum, right of free speach does not imply the means of dissemination
>are free.  Never have been, and likely never will be.

 I've noticed that it is a common practice for some people on the net
to dissect a post that they disagree with, isolate a small part, quote
it out of context, ascribe to the quote an unintended meaning, and then
attack the quote in hopes of trivializing the entire post.  Your little
tirade above is an example of this tactic.  A classic strawman argument.
In the very same post from which you quote, I also said:

  "I have no argument with AT&T's right to prevent its employees from using
their facilities to express personal opinions, just so it is done in a fair
and equitable manner.  For example, IMO AT&T would be perfectly within their
rights to restrict employees posts to "non-political" newsgroups only,
such as the sci.* groups.  IMO, AT&T would also be perfectly justified in
banning across the board all posts made for personal reasons.  What
I object to is censorship... the selective filtering of communications
for the purpose of eliminating ideas deemed unorthodox, nonconformist or
otherwise unacceptable."

"... Nowhere have I advocated *unrestricted* posting privileges for John
DiNardo or anyone else.  Obviously, resources are limited, and certain
restrictions are necessary.  What I demand is that any restrictions
are implemented without regard to the political, religious or otherwise
personal *content* of the post.  In other words, I object to corporations
censoring their employees."

 More importantly, I have never claimed that *I* deserve access to
AT&Ts computers, as you suggest above.  Go back and look, reading
carefully this time.  So your little argument is exposed
for the meaningless attack that it is.

>If you don't like this, Mr. Schiavone, I suggest you propose a new tax
>providing funds for free media access for all, whether that be print,
>broadcast, or Internet.

 Yours is an interesting suggestion, worthy of consideration.
Perhaps the new tax would cost us less than the hidden cost of
all the mindless corporate advertising that we suffer now.  Perhaps free
media access for all would stimulate our intellects, improve our education,
strengthen our democracy, enrich our lives, and bring the dawning of a
new age. Unfortunately, I am not in the position to propose any new
legislation at present, but I shall study your suggestion, and keep it
in mind.

>Until such time as said law passes, your demands that AT&T manage their
>resources as you see fit is simple arrogance.  BTW, as a system
>administrator, I never pay any attention to content of employee posts,
>unless an illegality is brought to my attention, which has only occured once.

  I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely compliment you on
your policy of ignoring the content of employee posts.  But I am curious
as to what motivates your policy.  Do you feel bound by a code of ethics?
Is it because you abhor the role of the censor?  What if you received
complaints regarding the contents of an employee post?  Would you defend
the rights of your fellow employee, or would you remove their access?
What if Intel asked you to filter outgoing posts based on content - would
you attempt to do it, or would you resign your job as system administrator?

>I however would never presume to criticize how AT&T manages their systems.
>That is 100% their perogative.
>--
>Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
>Internet: sbradley@scic.intel.com   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley

  It is your 100% that I see as the real arrogance here, Mr. Bradley.
Not the simple arrogance of one small voice that you accuse me of, but real
arrogance backed by power.  For it is your 100% that says the corporation
can trample on the rights of its employees and the general public, and
that it can ignore the combined traditions of democracy and human rights
on which this country is founded.  In his own post on this topic,
Henry E. Hardy (seraphim@ais.org, hardyh@gvsu.edu) very astutely
observes:

"...the TCP/IP technology which ATT is privileged
to employ in speeding its electronic messages around the world was
developed by the United States through its research and development
agencies. If the people of the United States have been generous enough
to share these resources with corporations like ATT then I should think 
they should be grateful."

"ATT sends messages over the Internet and the NSF backbone. Nothing compels
the people of the United States to continue subsidizing access to the net
for these corporations as we have heretofore."

  This is hardly a complete list of the public subsidies that AT&T
receives, and AT&T is certainly not alone in receiving them.  For example,
your own company, Intel, has also greatly benefited from, and probably
owes its very existence to, ideas and concepts generated by publicly
subsidized research and development programs.  Intel's products flow
over a publicly subsidized transportation system.  Intel's workforce is
trained in publicly supported schools.  A large part of Intel's end-market
consists of public universities and government agencies, so that Intel's
market is also heavily subsidized by the public.

  Your 100% is untenable.  Would it be such a blow to the AT&T's corporate
ego if that 100% was instead 99%, with 1% being reserved by an obligation
to respect the basic human rights of employees and the traditions of a
society that allows AT&T to flourish?  I think not, and any behavior
otherwise will be ultimately self-destructive.

   -Guy Schiavone