------------------------------ From: portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins@SUN.COM Subject: Response to Mars "Censoring" Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 00:04:25 PDT ******************************************************************** *** CuD #2.09: File 4 of 8: Response to Mars "Censoring" *** ******************************************************************** In article , Karl Lehenbauer writes, >I used Prodigy several times, and it is a heavily censored system,... This is inaccurate. Prodigy is not censored, it is _edited_. There is a significant difference. When newspaper articles are removed by government order, that's censorship. When the newspaper owners decide to not run an article because it is counter to their editorial policies (or personal prejudices), then that's editing. The difference is that in the first case, the State is telling a citizen (by threat of force) what she can and cannot do with her own property. In the second, a citizen is disposing of his property as he sees fit. The Prodigy situation is far more like the second case than the first. Prodigy resources are owned by IBM and Sears. Since Prodigy is their property, they may dispose of it as they see fit. This includes editing their databases to remove any information inconsistent with their policies. Some may argue that the $10 a month (plus fees for other services provided) gives the Prodigy subscriber the right to post anything she desires. This isn't the case. The subscriber is paying for the right to use the resources as provided for in the contract. Unless IBM and Sears agree in the contract not to edit or abridge information residing on Prodigy, they continue to have the right, both morally and legally, to do so. Censorship is when some organization says, "You may not say X.". Editing is when some organization says, "You may not use _my property_ to say X." This is an important distinction to make explicit; there is an increasing tendency for people to believe that they have not only the right to say whatever they want, but also the unlimited right to use the property of others to do so. Mr. Lehenbauer also writes, >If this is IBM's view of the future of personal electronic communications... >it is a bleak future indeed... every message must be so inoffensive that >*nobody* is going to be offended by it... and that is censorship. IBM doesn't control electronic communications in this country; the Prodigy subscriber is certainly free to go elsewhere to express his views. This is what many of them are doing. BIX is getting a lot of former Prodigy users these days. It's not censorship. It's also worth mentioning here that although the Prodigy bulletin board system is edited, Sears and IBM have agreed to not edit email. Users are free to form email groups (like Internet mailing lists) to discuss whatever they want, from sex to explosives. They just have to pay extra for it. In article In the MARS incident, the NSF flexed its fiscal muscles (according to those >on the receiving end). This is again not censorship. The NSF pays for the Internet, and has the right to say how those monies are spent. Since MARS resided on an Internet node, the NSF had the right to refuse to pay for those files to be transmitted across its network. In fact, the NSF has the right to refuse to pay for network connections for any site for any reason whatsoever, unless it has made a contract to the contrary. If this is "flexing its fiscal muscles", then so be it. The quoted article quotes some other postings. I reproduce here the relevant portions: >I also don't like the idea of the university having to censor this board to >suit the narrow-minded leanings of a few people... >Again i am sorry that CENSORSHIP found its way into another democratic haven >of society... This is just more of the sort of illogic I referred to earlier. If these folks want their X-rated pictures, then they can have them. They just can't expect somebody else (the NSF or their University) to pay for them. They are certainly free to start their own BBS or post the material on a private BBS or Usenet mail server that allows such stuff. >Can a few angry letters to a federal bureaucrat invoke threats of fiscal >blackmail? If I boycott your business because I find some of your activities objectionable, am I threatening you with fiscal blackmail? Why should the NSF or a university be any different? The NSF is just boycotting sites that carry material it finds offensive, and the universities are just exercising their right to control use of their property. >It would seem that officials could confiscate the equipment of a sysop who >maintained adult .gif/.gl files. If you are concluding this on the basis of the "federal prosecutions and application of RICO" referred to earlier, then I agree with you that it's something to be worried about. It would be a violation of various First Amendment rights. If you're concluding this by extension from the NSF actions, I must disagree. A government agency deciding what it wants to spend its money on is hardly analogous to confiscating someone's property. The legal right to do one does not provide the legal right to do the other. >A recent article... raised the spectre of "licensing" BBSs. Now _this_ is something to worry about. This reminds me of the situation in oppressive regimes, where printing presses and photocopiers are "licensed". Somehow I don't think they'll get away with this one. Any such regulation would be a clear violation of First (and other) Amendment rights. CLARIFICATION: When an organization is funded by extortion (i.e. taxes), those who fund it have a moral right to say how those funds will be spent, over and above the organization's aims. The receivers of the service _still_ don't have any rights of control, unless they have entered into a contract with the provider that gives them that right. In a constitutionally limited republic such as ours, that taxpayer control is exerted in one of two ways. The first is by electing to government those we believe will implement the policies we want. The second (and far more rare option) is referendum. As long as its decisions remain within the policies set for it by elected officials and referendum, the NSF has the right to spend (or refuse to spend) its money as it likes. If the article I read in CuD is any indication, the purpose of the NSFnet is to only support the exchange of "scholarly" information. X-rated GIFs don't belong in that category, in most folks' eyes. :END CLARIFICATION By the way, with PC-Pursuit costs, I pay $40 a month for Net access. Yet at work there is an Internet gateway I could sign up for access to and use to make my posts (for free!). The reason I don't is that I don't think it's moral to use IBM resources for purposes IBM wouldn't approve of, such as expressing disapproval of their policies; it's their property. So I'm not just spouting rhetoric that doesn't cost me anything. +++++++++ Dan Hankins dan-hankins@cup.portal.com dan-hankins@pro-realm.cts.com Complete the following: Pro is to Con as Progress is to ________. Disclaimer: I don't work for the NSF or Sears. Although I have a contract with IBM to provide programming services to them in return for a salary, this does not constitute approval for their policies. In particular, I think that their Prodigy policies, while not immoral, are particularly stupid. The kind of editing they do on the bulletin board, their ridiculously high email charges, and their complete lack of upload/download capability will simply drive customers to other services. I am not a Prodigy subscriber, nor do I intend to become one. For the same $10 a month, I like Portal much better. And I post things in alt.individualism that you'd never see on Prodigy BBS. I defend your right to freedom of expression. Just don't ask me or anyone else to foot the bill. ******************************************************************** >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+