[10081] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Andrews Univ. & C. Thomas
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Sun Feb 6 11:26:41 1994
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 1994 11:26:12 -0500
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: nettech@crl.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: "Joseph W. Stroup"'s message of Sun, 6 Feb 1994 00:45:36 -0800 (PST) <199402060845.AA23095@crl.crl.com>
>From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com>
>I do not agree with the way Clarence Thomas sent his message out over
>the net but, I support his right to do so. In the Andrews Univ. news
>release even the Univ. pointed out that Mr. Thomas did not violate
>the law. Sounds like a lawsuit to me. Andrews Univ. was concerned about
>its rep. on the net ? Give me a break. We all know that censorship begins
>at home. Its funny to see a religious group concerned about public opinion
>and no so concerned about ones civil rights.
Mr Stroup,
Although I cannot judge the specific case beyond what information we
have I believe your stated principles are seriously misguided.
Last I checked one does not have to break the law to be fired from a
job, or less (in this case less.) Obnoxious and disruptive behavior is
more than sufficient and that's what we have here.
Certainly one has freedom of speech, but that is a private matter and
no one is obligated to provide you with a paycheck to push its limits
(and I don't even believe we have any such thing here.)
It is at the very essence of any rational notion of free speech that
one must take some responsibility for that speech. Mr Thomas' actions
caused others to take responsibility for his "speech".
Besides, even to claim this is a freedom of speech issue is stretching
beyond all rational limits. It is not the content of the message being
complained about, it is his use of the medium, and his doing so when
he was either supposed to be working or at the very least his use of
facilities provided him as part of that job. Where in your equation is
any of this considered? Do you believe it even possible that someone
taking a paycheck to then go and do something completely unrelated
might be dishonest, even fraudulent? Or do you argue that once that
paycheck is given if Mr Thomas chooses to spend the paid time learning
juggling and preaching to his co-workers rather than the job he was
hired to do then that is his "right"?
This is not freedom of speech, and you weaken the notion very much
with your attempt at an argument, this is merely a prank and possibly
a malicious one. There is no content to be defended here and if Mr
Thomas thought it so important to abuse the medium he could have done
so on his own time and at his own expense. He still may have been
liable to answer for his actions, what of the rights of those he
affected? Are they simply worthless in your world-view? One does not
have to break the law to do others damage, they merely have to cost
someone else something unreasonable and without their consent, thus is
the distinction between criminal and civil law. That it takes the form
of speech does not a priori defend it.
WIthout a reference to content your plea is empty and without
substance. It is as if one were justifying blasting one's stereo at
3AM and disturbing the neighbors as a "free speech" issue.
Horsefeathers, in a word.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
