From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: To boycott is not to censor
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:09:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.150732.2738@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan2.224336.24949@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) said:
>
>>
>> What?  Let him print what ever he wants in *his* newspaper or
>> magazine?  Hey, if only _you_ have a newspaper or magazine, you have
>> denied access.  Sounds a lot like "let them eat cake!" to me.
>> Indeed, I guess everybody has a magazine or newspaper at his
>> disposal.

As you mentioned, this entire matter has become merely an exercise in
semantics.

The initial proposal to 'boycott' clayton included a comment regarding the
last person who had been the target of such a boycott.  I read the information
that this individual (named) had been the target of so much mail to his sysop,
that his net privileges had been taken away.  Thus, I equate the boycott
proposal with what appears to be the final objective, loss of net privileges.

Now, you may differentiate between public forums and private, you can "define"
censorship as a prerogative of government only, and you can espouse the
"let them eat cake" doctrine if you choose.  Semantics, in this case.

I read the proposal which stated clearly a desire to keep clayton off the net.

You don't choose to call it censorship?  Okay.

You say:    (if)
>it's legitimate for some people (or cartels of people) to own more
>property than others then the unequal ownership of forums for the
>expression and dissemination of ideas and opinions is also legitimate
>-- in a system wherein it's legitimate for some people to own cake
>while others only have crumbs, "Let them eat cake" _is_ a perfectly
>valid doctrine.

It may be a valid doctrine, but the arrogance it carries does not
sit well with people who desire equal time to express themselves.  You're
saying that people with this 'property' are just "more equal" than those
without and should be allowed a wider circle of listeners in any society
which espouses private ownership of property.  Not a lawyer, but I have
always believed that owning such private property as newspapers, radio,
carried with it a bit more responsibility to provide equal access to
the public than, say a parking lot or condominium.  I think the media
has a responsibility to serve the community, but I'm not sure the same
holds true for a bootmaker, or a TV repairman.
>
>(I'm not, right here and now, taking any personal position on the
>question of the legitimacy of property.  I'm just trying to point out
>some of the implications of this discussion  -- that if you take an
>intuitively sound position like "everyone should be given equal access
>to the press" and follow it through to its logical conclusion, you
>might end up somewhere that you didn't expect to be, such as
>advocating the elimination of property and capitalism.)

Hmmm.
No, nothing that ominous was intended.  Just wanted to point out, in the
subject at hand, "To boycott is not to censor," the intitial proposal did,
in fact, include a little "crowing" over the recent success at terminating
the target's net privileges.  I did, and do, consider that objective to
equate to censorship.

I could not, at this time, recall the person posting that suggestion.  But,
in my reading and processing the information, I reached my conclusions.  I
have seen no posts to date which altered those conclusions.


Your definition and your conclusion may differ, depending of course on what
you have read in usenet, and on whether you consider_this_ forum to be
"private property" or government funded.  I realize that could be another
debate, but that takes _two_ people.

I've said all I intended to say (sound of pulling off my boots.)

>
>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
>
Just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from.

--David



Newsgroups: alt.irc