COVERT CENSORSHIP IN AMERICA
and
CENSORSHIP ON INTERNET
by Kirk Brothers
CLICK HERE to return to Index
INTRODUCTION
In Chapter Two of my book-in-progress, THE REVOLUTIONARY
RIGHT, I noted that a gross miscarriage of justice--the delibe-
rate suppression by Federal Judges of a test case on Social
Security--was totally ignored by the mass media.
Not a single newspaper, wire service, or broadcast organiza-
tion paid the slightest attention to our news releases exposing
the scandalous truth--thus negating our best efforts to inform
the American people of the widespread corrupt practice of
"judicial legislation" by partisan activists in black robes.
In this brief article I should like to address the topic of
censorship in America. Obviously, we do not suffer censorship as
a result of official government policy as in Nazi Germany--
enforced by police powers--which would be instantly and vigorous-
ly opposed by all civil libertarians. Rather, I address censor-
ship which is covert, privately executed, and which leaves the
victim of such censorship without any recourse to obtain relief.
CENSORSHIP VIS-A-VIS THE FIRST AMENDMENT
First, an important definition with Constitutional over-
tones.
Censorship is, in essence, PRIOR RESTRAINT upon freedom of
speech and, by logical extension, freedom of the press. Our
Constitution (sham though it may be) guarantees only that the
Federal government may not impose prior restraint upon speech or
the press. The First Amendment does NOT establish that such
restraint may not be imposed by non-governmental bodies.
In fact, freedom of the press implies freedom to publish
outright lies with impunity. An obvious example is that of the
National Inquirer and many other alleged newspapers of the same
misbegotten ilk. Such publications appeal to mentally-retarded
readers, or half the population--giving the National Inquirer its
dubious claim to the country's largest circulation of any
periodical.
In addition, the First Amendment right of free speech and
press implies the right to propagandize and/or censor--which we
will show is standard operating procedure in America. Here's a
well-known example.
CENSORSHIP BASED UPON DOCTRINAL BELIEFS
The Catholic Church practices prior restraint upon all books
published as "Catholic" books and sold in Catholic book stores.
Any person who writes for such "authorized" circulation must sub-
mit his manuscript for two stages of censorship.
The first stage results in a determination of "nihil obstat"
--nothing objectionable--by a clergyman whose decision is accep-
ted as "semi-final". The second stage--once a manuscript passes
the test of "nihil obstat", is the "imprimatur" (let it be prin-
ted). The prefatory pages of any book sold under the auspices of
the Church include this information with the names of the theolo-
gians who certified the book as conforming to Catholic doctrine.
Such books make no pretense of objectivity, and suppress any
viewpoint which might be seen as heresy. Obviously, a Libertar-
ian has no problem with censorship of Catholic books by Catholic
authorities. Libertarians simply live in another world, where
concern with orthodoxy in thinking is irrelevant.
CENSORSHIP BASED UPON SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY
Let's take another example closer to home for most of us, by
examining what might be the most frequently censored work of
classic American literature by one of our most talented authors.
Mark Twain was a gifted writer whose works have a distinc-
tive "folk" style--and he was OPPOSED to slavery and racial
prejudice. It so happens that in TOM SAWYER, his novel of boys'
life in Hannibal, Missouri, Twain had created the minor character
of Huckleberry Finn--the son of the "fragrant town drunk".
Later, at a time when the country was surging toward Civil
War over the issue of slavery, Twain wrote a sensitive novel
featuring young Huck Finn and a runaway slave named Jim. The
story depicts their adventures on a raft trip down the Missis-
sippi River, from a slave state to a free state. The story is
told by Huck himself, talking as a young boy from a racist cul-
ture in which blacks were referred to as "niggers" in casual
conversation.
Bookburners have had a field day with HUCKLEBERRY FINN--time
and again it has been banned from school libraries, and rein-
stated when more level heads prevailed over those individuals who
merely counted the "n" word as their one and only criterion for
"racism".
The fact, proved time and again by repeated experience, is
that if one reads the entire novel carefully, one easily discerns
that young Huck's attitudes towards blacks undergo a subtle
change--Finn in fact CONSPIRES with "nigger Jim" to pretend that
Jim is Huck's slave, and that they are traveling on Huck's
business.
Young Huck, without realizing what is happening in his own
thinking, comes to the conclusion that slavery is WRONG. It is a
truly moving experience to read the boy's words as he expresses
Twain's liberal viewpoint on human relationships without becoming
"preachy", which would destroy the character and mood.
CENSURES V CENSORS
The misunderstanding of the novel HUCKLEBERRY FINN began
even among such intellectual Americans as Twain's fellow writer,
Louisa May Alcott. Twain's anti-slavery novel was totally mis-
construed as racist by many abolitionists like the Alcott family.
Did public censure censor? Did it restrain Twain's right of
free speech? Obviously not--since the book was widely reprinted
and read--but incidents banning a book certainly impose a subtle
form of restraint upon the right of readers to inform themselves
of what the dispute is about. A person who merely reads and
likes a "bad" book may be stigmatized, or suspected of evil
motives--a form of intimidation that may dissuade many from even
owning the work.
Here's a recent and relevant example. A fellow Libertarian,
Traves Coppock, is organizing a study group on Constitutional
rights, and I am proud to say that my articles will be among his
sources of information on that subject. Like many Libertarians,
Mr. Coppock is well-read, and is not averse to using an apt
quotation here and there. Because he believes in spreading the
truth as Libertarians see it, he made use of this quotation in an
article he posted recently:
"If you want to make the people angry, tell them a lie. If
you want to make them livid with rage, tell them the truth."
Now, be honest. Isn't that a well-constructed and effective
--if not brilliant--aphorism? Doesn't it say a great deal in a
few words? Isn't it easy to remember by virtue of the contrast
of ideas? Couldn't it be used in just about any context to
promote just about any philosophy?
Well, there is a very ironic fact involved here--the irony
is that this remark, so appropriate for Libertarians to use
within their own belief system, was the creation of the most
despotic mass murderer of this century--Adolf Hitler--in MEIN
KAMPF.
Had Mr. Coppock merely quoted the text without citing the
source, he might have been faulted for not saying who wrote it.
So he simply noted the author's name, without comment of any
kind.
Immediately other so-called Libertarians rose to what they
erroneously perceived as an outrageous endorsement of Nazism, and
attacked Mr. Coppock--for merely using a quotation from Hitler.
He was called upon to renounce, or explain, or apologize, etc.,
for simply quoting a man whom true Libertarians unite in condemn-
ing.
This hyper-reaction, or knee-jerk hostility, is typical of
book-burners and banners, who do not trouble to evaluate care-
fully what they have read--or to see the "objectionable" part in
context of the whole. Taking material out of context is a propa-
ganda trick, used by every lawyer in the business every day.
And since we are on the subject of Libertarian beliefs, let
it be said that a true Libertarian grants even neo-Nazis the
right to express their beliefs. We accept the words of Thomas
Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1801):
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this
Union or to change its republican form, let them stand
undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of
opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat
it."
A similar idea was expressed by Chief Justice Holmes in
ABRAMS V UNITED STATES, 250 U.S. 616 (1930):
"When men have realized that time has upset many fighting
faiths, they may come to believe more than they believe the
very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good
desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is
the only ground upon which their wishes safely may be
carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Consti-
tution."
But let's return from mere censure to censorship in America.
And what might be the most pernicious aspect of covert censorship
is the fact that it happens every day, in virtually every news
organization in the country. Let me give you an example.
CENSORSHIP BY GATEKEEPERS
Let's consider for a moment the organizational structure of
a newspaper--or television news program, which has been my per-
sonal experience. Titles and duties may vary slightly from one
company to another, but a general pattern holds true for all.
At the top of the chain of command is "the big boss"--the
publisher of a newspaper, or the news director of a television
station. The boss is the one who sets general policies which his
subordinates follow--or get fired.
If the boss sets a policy of "action news" with lots of
sensational footage of fires, crime scenes, and emotional report-
ing, that's what the readers or audience will get. If they don't
like it, they buy another paper or look at another channel.
Below the big boss may be a number of producers in charge of
particular segments of a TV newscast, or feature sections in a
newspaper, with perhaps several subordinates to supervise complex
stories in detail. These lesser executives must follow policies
set from above, and may have attained their positions by the so-
called "Peter Principle"--defined as promotion to the level of
one's incompetence, where one stays for the rest of one's career.
And at the bottom of the chain of command is the young
apprentice "learning the ropes", whose main job is to open the
pile of mail that arrives every day addressed merely to "news",
and decide who gets it. Many of these mailings are "junk" publi-
city releases offering "video opportunities" of exhibitions,
etc.; news of public demonstrations; plaintive letters seeking
help with legal or social problems; and/or "crank" letters such
as the "Unabomber" manifestos which were suppressed by the media
on grounds of "journalistic responsibility" (more on this later).
So it should be no surprise that a mailing of a news release
to nearly 40 media organizations elicited no interest or reaction
whatsoever. Imagine, if you will, a young man or woman, perhaps
a functional illiterate (translation: U.S. public high school
graduate), or just out of college, opening a stack of envelopes
stuffed with mostly low-interest material. He/she sees a release
headed THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT--quickly sees that somebody tried
to prove that Social Security is unconstitutional--had no lawyer
--lost his case--and now argues that the Judges are crooked.
"Wow!" might be the response. "What a bunch of crackpots!"
The release may be posted on a bulletin board as an "inside
joke", or simply tossed in the wastebasket. Score: zero.
What has happened? The person opening the mail is what is
called "a gatekeeper", whose job is to decide who shall be let in
and who shall be kept out. Even if an off-beat news release were
to be handed over to some higher-up, the response of that person
would most likely be a laugh and a brush-off--another gate-keeper
at work.
In short, there are many levels of decision-making prior to
having the story considered by the TV producer, and at any of
those levels a gatekeeper who is ignorant or prejudiced may
arbitarily say "no". The result is covert censorship.
CENSORSHIP AS EDITORIAL POLICY
A moment ago I mentioned "Unabomber", whose manifestos
mailed to major newspapers were never printed--the purported
reason being "editorial responsibility" not to encourage other
"cranks" from so-called "copycat" crimes.
Because the trial of a suspect alleged to be "Unabomber" has
yet to take place, I shall confine my remarks to the irrelevant
and unactionable matter of whether the suspect was in fact the
person who wrote the letter published by the New York Times, et
al.
1) the manifestos were obviously written by a highly-
educated man of strong but unorthodox political beliefs;
2) the nature of "Unabomber's" crimes and the messages he
sent to police show distinctive personality traits, which made up
an FBI psychological "profile" used in the most massive manhunt
in recent times;
3) the obvious inference one must inescapably draw is that,
unless "Unabomber" were a complete "loner"--without any family or
friends--publication of judiciously-edited "Unabomber" communi-
ques, together with comments from police and psychiatric experts,
(a) would certainly have had genuine news value; and (b) might
help apprehend him by alerting the nation to persons known or
suspected to fit the official profile;
4) in short, newspapers having first-hand communications
from the alleged "Unabomber" might have performed a public
service by speeding his identification and capture.
In fact, when the New York Times relented its "hard line"
policy on the "Unabomber" documents, and published lengthy
portions verbatim, they were read by millions of concerned
Americans--one of whom believed he recognized his brother's style
and subject matter. And while these remarks might be credited to
20/20 hindsight, any competent newsman should have had enough
foresight to anticipate such a possibility.
CENSORSHIP AS A FACTOR IN PROPAGANDA
While the New York Times and other papers might have defen-
ded their suppression of "Unabomber's" communications as "jour-
nalistic responsibility" (an example of the glittering generality
which is vague and undefined), it seems realistic to believe
simply that the newspapers (justifiably) did not like "Unabomber"
and what he was allegedly doing, and therefore refused to publish
his "defense". But from any objective viewpoint, the end result
was that a major news story was only partially presented--because
the whole story wasn't "fit to print", perhaps.
Which introduces the obvious fact that newspapers take sides
on political issues, endorsing certain candidates and favoring
their own choices. There are two local newspapers where I live--
one overtly Democratic, and one leaning toward the Republican
party --with distinctively different styles.
If one writes a letter to the editor of either paper, it may
or may not be published--entirely at the editor's discretion.
And the usual "free enterprise" response of journalists to
critics of editorial fairness seems to be, "it's our newspaper,
and freedom of the press means we can print what we want. Start
your own newspaper if you don't like it."
All well and good as rhetoric--but the bottom line is that
no press is truly fair unless all viewpoints have at least some
degree of access to it. Radio and television, however, are
electronic media, and "fairness" appears to be more of a concern.
FAIRNESS IN BROADCAST NEWS
It is my observation that radio and television do a fairer
job of reporting political news than print media--meaning main-
stream newspapers--and there is a very good reason for this to be
true.
Newspapers have been around for centuries, but wireless
transmission of actual sounds (as opposed to Morse code) is less
than eighty years old. And because the new technology depended
upon the nature of radio waves to cross geographical/political
boundaries, it was almost immediately seen to fall within Federal
jurisdiction, as a form of interstate commerce. So, the Federal
Radio Commission (FRC) was promptly created by Congress to regu-
late the new industry--which was initially chaotic, with stations
changing their power and frequencies at will, and interfering
with each other's signals. In a few years the FRC became the FCC
so as to include interstate telephones and point-to-point radio
as well.
Besides regulating the engineering aspects of broadcasting,
the FCC was authorized to guarantee fairness in political news
coverage, by Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934. This
law provides that if a broadcaster sells time to any candidate
for any public office, the same broadcaster must also sell an
equal amount of time, at the same price, in an equivalent time
period, to each and every other candidate for the same office--
with a special provision prohibiting censorship of a candidate's
speech.
Newspapers, of course, are not subject to such requirements,
simply because no license is required to establish a newspaper.
The power of the FCC to enforce Section 315 lies in its power to
deny license renewal if a station seriously violates FCC rules.
Therefore, broadcasters have grown up with a long tradition
of presenting both sides of a political debate--and once a habit
is ingrained, it naturally tends toward a "domino effect" in
terms of other news presentations. Thus when a suspect is arres-
ted and charged with a crime, most stations try to get the sus-
pect's side of the story, although any denials of guilt are
usually made only by the suspect's lawyer, in Court.
Similarly, when a demonstration in favor of some political
cause is involved (such as abortion), most stations make a con-
scientious effort to present all viewpoints in a balanced manner.
In addition, newspapers take editorial stands daily, while radio
and television editorials are relatively few and far between--
inviting viewer rebuttals--and are rather bland to begin with.
It should be noted that in the Clinton/Dole campaign the
face-to-face debates between the two major candidates excluded
all minor candidates--including Ross Perot, the Libertarian
candidate, the SWP candidate, and so on. But this exclusion was
not the decision of broadcast officials--it was made by the
political organization arranging the debates, which was subject
to no fairness doctrine. Clearly the exclusion of all minority
candidates was prejudicial, and a form of censorship, but net-
works were able to broadcast only what the debate panel chose to
permit.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
CENSORSHIP ON INTERNET
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
INTRODUCTION
This article consolidates and updates facts and opinions
which were first presented in four postings during a heated
controversy over censorship of my writings by my Internet Service
Provider. I presume that readers of this article are familiar
with my dispute with--and disuserment by--Mindspring, so that no
further explanation is necessary here.
PURPOSE
Now that the fire of emotions has cooled somewhat, I should
like to restate the facts calmly and objectively, in the hope of
finding a remedy to prevent any similar incident, which I view as
an unacceptable infringement of freedom of speech.
To find a remedy one must first define the problem narrowly
and precisely--and then suggest a narrow and precise solution.
INTERNET AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH
It should not need restating that Internet began as a net-
work among government agencies and universities--where academic
freedom is a topic of perennial concern. The right of college
professors and students to discuss ANY controversial subject is a
sine qua non which is zealously and properly defended by academi-
cians worldwide. By virtue of its academic tradition, Internet
is still seen as one forum in which a writer may offer opinions
which are INTENDED to be thought-provoking--or perhaps merely
provoking.
Freedom of speech includes freedom of subject matter and
style of presentation--there are no taboos, provided that the
treatment given any subject is within broad limits of the right
to disagree on INTELLECTUAL grounds. Therefore Internet must be
receptive to journalistic writing intended for easy understanding
by laymen, as well as scholarly writing on erudite theories for
learned readers.
JUSTIFIABLE CENSORSHIP
It is, I believe, universally accepted that Ponzi schemes
are not defensible as "free speech". Ponzi schemes, more com-
monly known as chain letters or pyramid schemes, are NOT "spam"
--they are criminal offenses in virtually every state, on grounds
of fraud.
Chain letters may not legally be sent by snail mail, and
there is no viable argument that they may be sent electronically.
Should a member of Internet transmit a chain letter, or an adver-
tisement for a chain letter, instant disuserment of that member
is a proper punishment for the crime.
But what is usually called "spam" is NOT actionable as a
crime and, unfortunately for advocates of free speech, in any
case of alleged "spamming" the censor becomes the complaining
witness, prosecuting attorney, judge, and executioner rolled into
one--with no court of appeal.
The facts will show that "spam" is a vague and imprecise
term, having no uniform definition or enforcement--both of which
may vary from one ISP to another.
FACTS IN THE DISPUTE
I bought my (first) computer, and joined Internet in August
of 1996 through Mindspring, an ISP which deserves the highest
ratings for technical facilities, software programs, support
personnel, and integrity in EVERY way--except ONE. Mindspring,
which is based in Atlanta, has a censor, who justifies her work
by arguing that she is preventing "abuse" of Internet newsgroup--
namely, "spamming".
From August of 1996 to January of 1997 I posted a total of
six excerpts from a projected book called THE REVOLUTIONARY
RIGHT. The excerpts were posted on a wide range of newsgroups
devoted to various economic, political and social problems--
running the gamut of party affiliations--in the hope of stimula-
ting intellectual debate among concerned Americans of a Liberta-
rian viewpoint on Social Security, political/judicial corruption,
and the right-wing armed militias which are very much in the news
these days.
The relevant alt hierarchies available through my present
ISP include 58 newsgroups devoted in general to such broad
subjects, and I felt that my excerpts would be appropriate on
about 25--or less than half. My assumption was that Democrats
would not be likely to read Republican newsgroups and vice-versa,
and that many readers would be interested in only one predominant
theme rather than all of them.
Hence, because the Clinton/Dole fiasco of last November was
treated in the first excerpt, I included alt.politics.clinton in
follow-up articles, as well as alt.politics.economics, and so on.
While some omniverous readers like myself might peruse thirty
news groups, I felt that most readers might limit their interests
to perhaps ten or less.
On January 27 I posted a seventh excerpt, entitled OUR
LUNATIC WAR ON DRUGS, which deals with the pandemic problems of
drug abuse and drug laws.
I submit as self-evident that this subject affects virtually
all citizens of all ages and callings, and--because it is a "hot
topic" for discussion by everyone interested in current events
and controversies--I added a few groups to my posting list, so as
to include three devoted to talk and college radio, as well as
one to alt.drugs (for the first time). The total number of
groups in the disputed posting was thirty-three.
This posting was interrupted by Mindspring and my access to
newsgroups as a writer was electronically blocked. Subsequently
Mindspring deleted the article from at least one newsgroup, and
ordered its cancellation from some files in Deja News, the
research and reference archives. The reason given: the article
was "spam", as defined by the "abuse" authority at Mindspring.
Those are the facts. Now let us define the problem, and try
to agree on a solution. And to do this, I should like to first
restate the arguments of the Mindspring censor, and then offer a
rebuttal to each point, to show that the censor's arguments are
without merit.
ARGUMENT 1
Mindspring argues that newsgroups have a regional basis, and
therefore that material which is "inappropriate" to a particular
geographical region is "spam". The decision as to appropriate-
ness is entirely at the discretion of the censor.
REBUTTAL
SOME newsgroups are regional, and input to them is sometimes
restricted by those newsgroups themselves. For example, Mind-
spring has its own newsgroups, available only to those with Mind-
spring software. In a similar way, some newsgroups may limit
themselves to members within a certain region (such as PA, PGH,
et al.), and may or may not be accessible only by password or
other screening mechanism.
But the alt hierarchies of newsgroups are NOT regional--they
are global in scope. I once posted an article before going to
bed at 3:00 AM, and six hours later, when I woke up, that article
had prompted a friendly reply from a reader in Italy.
Since I posted to alt newsgroups EXCLUSIVELY, it cannot be
held that material which is acceptable worldwide is unacceptable
in Atlanta--even though some Atlantans might not like my subject
or its treatment. After all, the title of any article gives a
clue as to what it is about, and no one is compelled to read it.
ARGUMENT 2
Mindspring argues that newsgroups have a narrow and precise
area of interest, and that articles remote from that special
field are "spam".
REBUTTAL
It is true that SOME newsgroups are narrow and specialized
in scope. For example, many computer owners are interested in
the subject of modems, and there is at least one newsgroup devo-
ted to the discussion of modem problems, etc. Obviously, an
article on drug laws would be inappropriate on a modem newsgroup,
just an article on modems would be totally inappropriate on
alt.politics.clinton.
But my postings were exclusively to newsgroups whose subject
matter is by nature broad enough to welcome articles on govern-
ment abuse in various ways--and so-called "sidebars" or "follow-
ups" to prior timely and appropriate articles.
Obviously, a "follow-up" is a continuation of a previous
item to which new events have mandated significant revisions
and/or additions. But if "sidebar" is a new term, it is "jour-
nalese" for a minor story which is logically related to a major
story, and which may be of at least passing interest to at least
some readers of the first.
For example, if Hillary Clinton makes a state visit to some
foreign nation, major stories will be devoted to her speeches and
actions--but sidebars may include her latest hair style or ward-
robe. In a similar way, because my article on drug laws was
posted on such groups as alt.drugs and alt.radio.college, the
sidebar or follow-up story of censorship of the drug article was
arguably of interest to those who found the first posting of
interest.
Ironically, Mindspring deleted OUR LUNATIC WAR ON DRUGS from
alt.radio.college on Deja News--though in fact a college reader
of that excerpt e-mailed me to ask for copies of the six prior
articles in the series. It should be obvious that if one reader
writes an author expressing interest, many others are also
interested, but do not trouble themselves to communicate.
Clearly, topics of broad and general interest may properly
be posted on multiple newsgroups devoted to different aspects or
viewpoints of the same subject of broad and general interest.
ARGUMENT 3
Mindspring argues that posting to thirty-three newsgroups is
excessive--to which I offer two points in rebuttal.
REBUTTAL
[NOTE: the following numbers are no longer accurate--there
now being more than 29,000 newsgroups on "the web"--but I leave
the figures and percentages as originally written. KB]
(1) There are some 27,000 newsgroups currently operating,
and 33 goes into 27,000 more than 800 times. Therefore, by
basic arithmetic, I posted to less than one-eighth of one percent
of all newsgroups. I was informed by one reader that in one
"spamming" case of his knowledge, the offender had posted some
400 articles. If 400 be a precedent to define "spam", I posted
to less than ten percent of the "spam" level.
(2) "Excessive" is purely subjective. As noted above, SOME
readers may choose to read only ten newsgroups--while others may
have broader interests, and more free time to peruse thirty or
more. Surely those of narrow interests should not be permitted
to restrict the reading rights of those with broader interests.
SUMMARY
It is illogical to proceed from SOME to ALL. Because SOME
newsgroups are geographically restricted--or specialized in terms
of content--it does not follow that ALL are.
I submit that the alt hierachies are global in circulation
and must be available to all viewpoints as a matter of free
speech.
I further submit that my posting to less than half of those
groups which focus on government abuse--political, economic, and
societal problems of our world, etc.--is reasonable for an intel-
lectual exchange of ideas on one of the most important legal
and/or Constitutional issues on earth today.
It is clear that Mindspring's definition of "spam" is vague,
imprecise, and unfairly subjective.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
I submit that if the foregoing points be clear and valid,
the solution to the problem of "spam" becomes obvious.
Namely, if "spam" is perceived as a problem on any news-
group, and its curtailment becomes an imperative, said newsgroup
should become a MODERATED group. All postings should first be
received by the moderator, who should have clear and precise
standards--and the authority to return a submitted article to the
writer together with a copy of written guidelines for submis-
sions.
In this way, standards and policies will be UNIFORM for that
newsgroup WORLDWIDE--they will not vary from from ISP to another
--and no ISP will again be put in a position of supremacy over
the right of free speech, which clearly an ISP does not merit.
Even some of the alt.sex newsgroups, where blatant "spam" is
notoriously bold in language and annoying in frequency, might opt
to appoint moderators to enforce LIBERAL rules, simply to mini-
mize the clutter on our "bulletin boards" which, after all, are a
public forum rather like the one used by Martin Luther.
Luther nailed his theses inaugurating the Reformation to the
door of the cathedral at Wuertemburg with the remark, "Hier stehe
ich--ich kann nicht anders (Here I stand--I cannot do
otherwise)". I submit that if a contemporary writer wishes to
nail intellectual arguments to a dozen "bulletin boards" as
substitutes for cathedral doors, he must have the same right as
Martin Luther.