From: guy@coos.dartmouth.edu (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
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:22:44 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH



Note to Mr. Holbrook - I have edited your text to conform to the 80 col.
standard.  Discover it sometime - it will improve the readability of your
posts.  Also, due to the extremely rude tone of your post, I wasn't really
sure if you were trying to initiate a discussion, or merely releasing your
pent-up anger all over your keyboard.  I've assumed the former, so I'm
responding, but with the invective deleted.  I have no interest in trading
insults with you.

>holbrook@apollo.HP.COM (Alan R. Holbrook) writes:

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

> [...] And there has been
>absolutely NO indication inferred or confirmed that they do not treat ALL
>their employees exactly the same way.

  No, you are completely mistaken.  I have discussed the matter with the
folks at AT&T.  The people who removed John DiNardo's access are concerned
about the "offensive" content of his posts.  Thus, they do *not* treat
all their employees in exactly the same way:  Those with "acceptable"
or mainstream political views may discuss political issues on the net, but
those with beliefs similar to DiNardo's will have their access removed if
they discuss political issues on the net.

>>    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.

My original post was in response to a very insightful post made by
sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE).  Nowhere in my original post did I
quote anything written by you.  Nowhere in my original post did I mention
your name.  So kindly explain how I could possibly be putting words in
your mouth.
  You are right in one respect.  I still have no idea how you feel about
censorship, nor how you define it.  Why not enlighten us?

>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.

  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 (short defn) - the selective filtering of communications
for the purpose of eliminating ideas deemed unorthodox, nonconformist or
otherwise unacceptable.

  Consider the following situation.  Let's say, for the sake of argument,
that you are a highly motivated member of the Republican party.  Further,
let's imagine that your sysadmin interpreted HP's NetNews policy as meaning
that only the views of the dominant party, the Democrats, are appropriate
material for posting to NetNews, and the views of all other political
parties must be suppressed on the grounds that they are offensive to the
majority.  Would you then consider your company, HP, guilty of practicing
censorship?

  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.


>>   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...

 In the above, you have committed the Logical Fallacy.  If all A have
quality B, it does NOT follow that all non-A have quality not-B.

In other words, I said that all corporations ("A") receiving significant
public subsidy should bear some social responsibility ("B").

You erroneously interpreted this to imply that all
private corporations ("not-A") have no social responsibilities ("not-B").


> [...(comparison of me to a sheep deleted)]
> [...(other comments deleted)]
>
>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.
>
> [...(implied physical threat deleted)]

 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.

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

  -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