On Sat, 6 Jan 1996, and Sn. 7 Jan, 1996, Vigdor Schreibman wrote, and 
Gordy Thompson answered, and Vigdor responded, etc:

VS:   ...the well settled meaning of the [1st Amend} doctrine is that one
    should be free to express their views in any group forum that they are
    accepted in, with strict prohibition against content censorship 
    (direct or indirect) except for reasonable time, place, and manner 
    limitations. 

GT: Uh-huh. And who specifies those "reasonable time, place and manner
    limitations"? 

VS: This may be properly decided by the list owner or moderator, as the 
    settled First Amendment doctrine prescribes.

GT: I'm still not clear on your thesis, then. Isn't this what you 
    called "censorship" when Outing did this very thing?

VS: Creative use of this principle could make better use of discussion lists 
    by, for instance, segmenting the dialogue into the various special interest
    groups that make up the professional field, or planning levels (e.g., 
    normative, strategic, and operational) that often segment the psychological 
    predisposition of participants.  Similarly, one could establish a "flame 
    zone" for those that like the gladiator approach to debate within the 
    designated topic.  

GT: How would this be implemented? Sounds to me like a lot of new mailing 
    lists to subscribe to.

                            * * * * *

    
    Are we having a nice dance around the bush, or what?

    At the opening of this discussion, Gordy Thompson responded to the
various claims of censorship I made by declaring non-existent the settled
doctrine of the First Amendment and exceptions, with regard to a "limited
public forum."  Here is how this unseemly state of denial plays out:
	*  a list owner vested with "state action" responsibilities may,
nevertheless, disregard those responsibilities if they post a boilerplate
unilateral declaration of their intent to censor at will ;
	*  personal attack by a list insider in aid of censorship of an
outsider is to be expected and will be supported by list's insider
participants against especially troubling outsider questions ;
	*  response by the victim of personal attack that discloses the text
of the attack is prohibited ; 
	*  the "time, place, and manner" exception to the doctrine, and
alternative structural possibilities that this allows are too ambiguous
to understand.

   What we are witnessing is a nation whose major social systems are
undergoing a radical breakdown because they can no longer operate in any
rough equilibrium governed by the old schemes.  The only way out of such
conditions is for the major leadership institutions (e.g., media,
government, industry) o reconsider  their fundamental governing values to
enable society to move toward a higher level of sophistication, beyond the
dysfunctional past future philosophy and morality of the market, but they
are all paralyzed and will not give an inch unless absolutely compelled to
do so. 

  Moreover, in any investigation of these conditions one must proceed 
with an open perspective, but here the reverse is true, closed minds 
proceeding in a state of radical denial.  Only at the edge of calamity 
will these insiders make any move, and then only the very minimum, 
whatever the cost to society-at-large.  

  We witnessed such a spectacle being played out last week by the Gingrich
Republicans.  In this list and throughout the Net much the same albeit on a
lesser scale is occurring. 

Vigdor Schreibman - FINS 


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

End of online-news-digest V1 #460
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Sun Jan  7 18:48:45 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [199.45.128.10]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA10021 ; for ; Sun, 7 Jan 1996 18:48:41 -0500