------------------------------

From: Czar Donic (California)
Subject: A Note on Censorship
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 15:40:43 0800

********************************************************************
***  CuD #2.14: File 5 of 8: A Note on Censorship                ***
********************************************************************

The recent debate or discussion in the Computer Underground Digest
concerning censorship is one more example of how technology has managed to
outpace legislation.  Naturally, the First Amendment covers freedom of
expression in all of its manifestations, but exclusions have not yet been
codified to the extent that we can point to a corpus of specific precedents
to support restrictions thereon.  It should be obvious to anyone that the
term "no law" means "no law," but ever since the prohibition against saying
"fire in a crowded theatre," people have been trying to modify the
constitution, trying to read that part of the first ammendment as meaning
"no law except . . ." or "no law but . . . ."  It is one of the greatest
ironies that those who consider themselves "strict constructionists" have
the most difficulty with this ammendment.

The issue seems to revolve around property rights vs. free speech rights.
In the case of broadcast media, the airwaves are defined as belonging to
the public and this allows the government, as OUR representative, to
regulate the content of programming, even involving itself in the news to
some extent.  For example, a fine arts station in Chicago, WFMT, once
elected to continue its classical music programming in the face of attack
by other interests who wanted its frequency.  The attacks took the form of
complaints about its lack of news coverage, especially on "communism."  The
station owners issued a statement that went something like this:  "WFMT
serves a purpose that is not altered by temporary interruptions."  The
station eventually won, but only at the cost of deflection from its
"purpose."  The price was involvement in the political and legal arena.

It seems to me that this is where we are right now in the issue of
censorship in the computer network area.  Who owns the network lines?  Who
owns the machines?  Who decides what information and in what form is
available to you?  Finally, we have an even deeper question which is "who
owns what information," which can be expressed as an even more philosophic
one:  "who owns information?"

Obviously, the framers of the constitution did not have internet on their
minds when when they were writing the constitution.  They did, however,
have an interest in the free flow of information.  Once a government can
restrict the information available to you, it can control every other
aspect of your life.  Avoiding or preventing such a situation was the
entire premise of the first amendment.

EDITING VS. CENSORSHIP

It should be obvious that an attempt to censor an individual's right to
freely express and distribute his ideas is contrary to common sense.  To
argue that publications such as Playboy and Penthouse must pay for
contributions from evangelical christians would clearly be absurd.  Equally
absurd would be to require that every BIBLE come complete with a
centerfold.  What is not so clear is whether such publications should be
forced to "air dissenting views."  Already, equal time provisions force
electronic journalists to make air time available in such cases.  Once this
crack in the rights of the "editor" is opened, all sorts of questions
arise.  Much debate is squandered over whether or not certain views are
"mainstream" enough to be considered "worthy dissent."

So the absurdity becomes compounded.  On the one hand we recognize that
dissenting opinions should be expressed.  On the other, we make certain
that those opinions do not dissent too much.  To paraphrase Barry
Goldwater, moderation in the defense of mediocrity is no virtue.  If
freedom of speech is to mean anything, it must mean that uncomfortable
views be expressed.

PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FREE SPEECH

We now come to the issue of property rights vs. expression rights.  It
seems perfectly reasonable that someone who puts up his own computer, his
own software, his own telephone line, his own electricity bills, should
have complete control over any and all activity that transpires on his BBS.
At the very least, he has the perogative of shutting it down or using an
unlisted number.

PUBLIC FUNDS AND FREE SPEECH

The recent argument over whether NSF has the right to censor gif files is
analogous to the recent controversy over NEA funding of what a few
retrograde senators consider morally offensive.  The recent flack over the
Maplethorp exhibit is a fairly clear example of this mentality.  Because of
it, congress rushed to adopt the Jessie Helms agenda.  Now, congress has
backed off as a result of Joe Papp and other famous artists refusing grants
and prominent reviewers resigning.

WALMART AND 7-11

The "moral majority" threatened to boycott 7-11 if it didn't stop selling
Playboy and Penthouse.  7-11 caved in.  Walmart followed suit, but then
proceeded to ban rock magazines (lot's of sex in those) but not hunting or
gun magazines.  Now Sam Walton is a bible thumper for the southern midwest
and went into it with gusto.  7-11, on the other hand, simply bowed to
pressure.  Now it is bankrupt.  People stopped going there.  Now another
group threatened Burger King and it turned around a wrote what seems to be
like the loyalty oaths of the 50's promising to sponsor only programs that
reflected "family values."

What people like us have to do is let people like Burger King know that we
will boycott them if they continue to knuckle under to extremists.

SOLUTION

Even though NSF has little choice but to try to exorcise the GIFS from
their system, Americans interested in free speech should be as vocal as
possible arguing for their continuance.  The reason is that we want battles
over free speech to be fought on the level or at the line of pornography.
As long as we can keep these bigoted zealots busy reading pornography and
worrying about it, they will be unable to attack more important and
meaningful forms of free speech.

Suppose there were no GIFS on the nets?  Then they would go after anything
else they could understand.  What about personal notes from one person to
another?  Will we have to document that every syllable is of scientific
import?  Suppose someone still believes in the steady state theory of the
universe rather than the big bang.  Do we cut him off because his views are
clearly invalid (so far as we know)?  It could very well happen if we did
not have the GIFS as a buffer.  We can recognize that the GIFS are of no
value whatsoever, that such material is available elsewhere, that they take
up valuable disk or tape space, that they clog the lines that could be
better used otherwise.  So what?  Their values remains as pawns in the game
of censorship and they are the most valuable ones we have.

Czar D.

********************************************************************
                           >> END OF THIS FILE <<
***************************************************************************


Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253 12yrs+