Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 18:58:22 PDT From: jwarren@AUTODESK.COM(Jim Warren) Subject: File 5--First Amendment semi-void in electronic frontier ?? IS POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS & ASSEMBLY PERMITTED IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER? There is no purpose for which the freedoms of speech, press and assembly are more essential than for unfettered participation in the political process. Yet, such personal freedoms -- permitted in 18th Century voice, paper and face-to-face form -- may be severely suppressed in electronic form. Although *personal* computer-based speech, press and assembly by employees, students and others is generally permitted in companies, schools and organizations, within reasonable limits of time and place, some folks say they must be monitored, accounted for, evaluated and reported -- or suppressed and prohibited -- when they contain *personal* political expression or advocate political support or opposition for candidates or ballot issues. There are experienced net-users who are political candidates who say this. THE PROBLEM Most folks access the nets via company, school or institutional computer accounts. Many are permitted to use that access for personal email, personal messages broadcast to email-alias lists and personal participation in public and private teleconferences -- provided they do so without adversely impacting their work or official basis for having their account. But: Federal and state regulations governing political campaign disclosures require that "contributions-in-kind" for or against candidates and ballot measures be accounted for and their value reported, just like cash donations. Contributions-in-kind include such things as postage, office space, printing, loans of furniture, office machines, etc. They also include use of telephones, faxes, computers, computer supplies, computer services, etc. Furthermore, donations by corporations are often restricted or prohibited. Most nonprofit organizations, including educational institutions, are entirely prohibited from making political donations -- or even lobbying for or against legislation (freedom is forfeited for tax perks). OVERT CORPORATE SUPPORT IS CLEARLY REGULATED If a corporation overtly underwrites political action by intentionally providing labor, staff, facilities, equipment or services to support or oppose a political campaign, then the fair-market value ot those services or facilities must clearly be reported as an in-kind contribution. (Such regulations appear to be much less enforced against unions and schools, and appear to be not-at-all enforced against churches or synagogues, regardless of how sectarian their political efforts may be.) THE 21st CENTURY QUESTION Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and assembly protected at work or school -- or is it a corporate or institutional political donation? PERSONAL POLITICAL SPEECH APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY VOICE Within reasonable limits on time and place, citizens are not *legally* prohibited from discussing politics with their office associates, or in the company or school or church hallway, or in the cafeteria or employee lounge, or in telephone conversations with callers and professional associates with whom they have a personal relationship as well as business association. (Note: This concerns *legal* restrictions; *not* the issue of whether political discussions are *wise* in a business, school or church setting.) PERSONAL POLITICAL PRESS APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY PAPER It is also common for employees, students and teachers to use *authorized* access to printers and copiers, to create and copy *personal* leaflets about political issues and activities that they hand to friends and post on company, school, church and synagogue bulletin boards. When they do so within the institutional limits placed on their general personal use of equipment and bulletin boards, the use has almost-certainly never been reported as an institutional contribution-in-kind. PERSONAL POLITICAL ASSEMBLY APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- FACE-TO-FACE It is common for corporations, schools, unions, religious institutions, etc., to permit their their cafeterias, lounges, union halls, meeting rooms and parking lots to be used for candidate presentations, campaign debates and meet-the-candidate(s) receptions -- as well as for both public and internal meetings to hear presentations by incumbent elected represenatives and/or by leaders of various community, legislative and regulatory groups. Participants are rarely charged for such use (except by sites that routinely derive revenue from renting meeting space), and the value of the meeting facility is rarely reported as an in-kind contribution to the speaker(s). In fact, it is considered to be "good institutional citizenship" for organizations to provide their facilities for meetings between citizens and their current and potential elected and appointed representatives. CAN CORPORATIONS AND SCHOOLS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT POLITICAL SPEECH? Now, consider those workplaces and educational institutions that permit *personal* conversation, usually within reasonable limits on time and place. And recognize that such personal speech may be one-to-one or within formal or informal personal groups, e.g. a lunch group in the cafeteria. When such personal speech and personal assembly *is* permitted: * Must those companies and institutions then prohibit all *personal* employee or student conversation that has political content? * Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy of political positions? * Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy for or against candidates? * And if they don't prohibit it, must they monitor it and report it? **************************************************************************** * If corporations and schools can not or should not suppress all on-site * * personal speech and association having political content -- but must * * report all in-kind donations -- then how shall they evaluate the desks, * * offices, hallways, cafeterias, lounges, phones, phone bills, computers, * * and bulletin boards where personal political speech, personal political * * "press"/notices and personal political assembly occurs? And, how shall * * they monitor such speech. press and assembly, so as to identify which * * campaign is receiving how much value in in-kind contributions? * **************************************************************************** AND, WHY SHOULD *ELECTRONIC* SPEECH AND *ELECTRONIC* ASSEMBLY BE DIFFERENT? When *personal* conversation and personal political expression is permitted by voice or telephone in workplace, union hall or school, why should personal political speech be prohibited when it by electronic mail? When *personal* notices and copying and personal political leaflets are permitted if they are on paper and/or posted on wall-mounted bulletin boards, why should such personal political press be prohibited when it is by electronic origin and distribution? When *personal* meetings and personal political discussion in groups is permitted if it is face-to-face in the cafeteria, lounge or parking lot of school or workplace, why should personal assembly with others be prohibited when it is by electronic newsgroups or teleconferences? **************************************************************************** * TO THE EXTENT THAT employees and students, within their institutions, * * are permitted freedom of personal political expression by voice and in * * writing, and freedom of personal political association by face-to-face * * meeting, why should personal political speech, press or assembly be * * suppressed -- or monitored and reported -- merely when it is electronic? * Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253