From: jmowen@mona.Gwinnett.COM (John M. Owen)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.ind
Subject: Re: I Have Been Forbidden to Speak the Truth From THIS Account
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 09:22:36 EST
Organization: Flat On My Back in Bed With Mona, Duluth, GA, USA

I find Schiavone's response thoughtful and considerate. The concept
of corporations having no social responsibility or requirement for regard  
of the civil rights of employees is a 19th-century atavism. If I read
Schiavone correctly, his premises are:
    - USENET access is a capacity for free speech, and a USENET posting
      is an exercise of free speech
    - Free speech includes the right to defend as well as complain
      about others speech, or ignore it.
    - Suppressing speech is a suspicious act, and should engender concern
      for the suppressed party
    - Postings are not necessarily the speech of the entity owning 
      the equipment by which the posting was transmitted
    - Corporations, esp. those who have guzzled heavily at the public 
      trough, are responsible for not suppressing the civil rights of
      employees.
    - DiNardo's sysadmin is a heavy-handed by suggesting DiNardo's
      access might be revoked because others complained. 

I should add that should this posting be transmitted by the equipment 
of AT&T, they are providing *ME* a venue I didn't pay for, and I'm not
even an employee! Why should they deny DiNardo a venue? Do they own him?

On the other hand, Mr. Holbrook, your post smacks of elitist and  
snobbish flamage. It suggests an insulting attitude toward 
Schiavone, towards rights of employees in general, and towards
anyone who uses the net and doesn't pay for all the equipment they
use, i.e. all net.users, every last one, including you! I paid for my
equipment, not you! Why do I have to read your STEENKEENG DRIVEL?!? 
To wit - holbrook@apollo.HP.COM (Alan R. Holbrook) writes:           

> Rent a clue, Mr. Schiavone.  
 [...]
>         <more drivel...>
 [...]
> "social responsibility".
 [...]
> I'll go out on a limb here and tell you what _I_ think the founding fathers i
> think they intended us to be responsible for our own actions and to expect to
> price when our views conflict with someone elses.
 [...]
> Get it straight again, fella', 
 [...]
>         <yet more drivel...>
 [...]

Perhaps I should email your sysadmin and suggest you are being net.rude
and suggest your post (or at least the parts I quoted out of context) 
reflect poorly on the public reputation of HP? It would be true, 
according to your opinion.

----- in conclusion -----
Looking back on this post, I fear I have wasted bandwith. There will 
always be reactionaries who feel freedom of speech has no place on the
net, just because someone else owns all the equipment. And they will
be sure to let everyone else know, whilst using everyone else's 
equipment. It happens every day. So what? Ignore them or rebut them. 

Be wary if someone is suppressed, however, because the value of the net 
relies on freedom of speech and can be diminished by censorship. Censorship 
is thus vandalism, i.e. net.censors <--> net.vandals, for anyone who
doesn't get it. 

-- jmowen@mona.Gwinnett.COM (John M. Owen) 
-- My .sig is bigger than yours - but I keep it offline.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.individualism,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,soc.culture.usa