------------------------------ From: laird@SLUM.MV.COM(Laird Heal) Subject: Re: Response to Mars "Censoring" Date: 7 Nov 90 10:45:18 EST (Wed) ******************************************************************** *** CuD #2.12: File 5 of 9: Mars *was* Censored *** ******************************************************************** In article , dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Dan Hankins) write: >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. >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. You have gotten caught up in an emotional response to the word "censorship". If you are going to mince words, do not use a meat tenderizer or your argument will be mush. The first comment is correct. Censorship is when a governmental body edits a writing based upon its perceived content. The fundamental point that has not been brought up by those approving of the action (removing access and storage of the pictures) is that a governmental body must grant First Amendment protection to all speech. The sole exception where censorship is generally allowable is when that speech would shock the general public, and this is normally restricted to materials in public view. The GIF archives are not in public view - even when sent as net-news they are encoded - but they were/are in a location where there is general public access of whatever files have been submitted to the archiver or to the network. Particularly with netnews, there is no specific editing done whatsoever after the author posts the article, and moderators serve only at the whim of a majority of voters. Wherever speech is allowed, even if the governmental body is paying for it, the content of that speech may not be regulated by the governmental body. These pictures might be accessed by immature youths who should be protected from carnal knowledge Moreover, once it is established, that arm of the government may not simply discontinue the service if the reason is to suppress the speech that is being communicated. The First Amendment is guarded zealously by the Federal courts and such an action should not withstand the "strict scrutiny" that it should be examined under. I wish the Second Amendment received such guardianship; I have never owned a gun, but I think everyone should have the right to own one while the government has lots of guns and seems to think nobody else should ever have any. Obscenity may be censored - when it might otherwise shock the unsuspecting public. A brown paper bag can never attract the prurient interest; do not tear the bag open unless you do want to see what is inside. I never have looked at any of the alt.sex hierarchy. Once a public forum exists, it may not be censored, although the participants may agree to self-regulation. I remember once wondering what was really in alt.flame, and the first article convinced me that I had read enough. Those guys are serious about their roasting there, not their vocabulary (damned if they do not just grab for the nearest word). The alt.flame group is there with a good reason - otherwise people who do not want to read that material might have to read the same articles, but in their news group. I personally can see no great benefit to maintaining an archive of sexually explicit GIF images, except that archives exist to keep network transmission to the most suitable paths; otherwise the private messages sent back and forth are unmanaged and unmanageable, and we wind up with the situation as described where Australians ftp'd files from Finland because they were not archived at a more convenient site. Archives reduce network load. Netnews reduces network load. I can also personally see no great benefit to every person having a gun or two except that we would all either be much more polite or on the way to an ambulance. I am not an absolutist, and everyone does not act the way I think everyone should. I do not act the way I think I should sometimes either. I am a pragmatist when it comes to dealing with other people's business: you send my files along, I will send yours along too. >Complete the following: Pro is to Con as Progress is to ________. That is a nice .signature. Laird Heal laird@slum.MV.COM The Usenet is dead! NA:USA:NH:Salem +1 603 898 1406 Long live the Usenet! ******************************************************************** ******************************************************************* >> END OF THIS FILE << *************************************************************************** Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+