On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Gordy Thompson wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Vigdor Schreibman - FINS wrote:

> > 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 ;
> 
> 	This, for example: I could not, and still cannot, understand the 
> derivation of "'state action' responsibilities" as they pertain to the 
> operation of a chartered, subject-specific mailing list. I think the 
> logic is tenuous even when the mailing list is run on hardware operated by a 
> state-funded entity like the University of Houston (PACS-L) or the 
> University of Louisville (CARR-L), and I think it's utterly specious when 
> it's run entirely in the private sector (online-news).

  ere is the language that identifies this Supreme Court doctrine and the
application I have focused upon, taken from San Diego Committee v. The
Governing Board, 790 F2d 1471, 1474-1475 (7th Cir. 1985): 

	In Perry [Education Association v. Perry Local Education, 460 US
	37 (1983)] and Cornelius [v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational
	Fund, 47 US 788 (1985)], the Supreme Court identified three types
	of forums to which the public's right of access varies, as does
	the type of limitation the state may impose upon the right.  The
	Court first focused on "places which by long tradition or by
	government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate," such as
	streets and parks, where "the rights of the state to limit
	expressive activity are sharply circumscribed." .... 

	  The second type of public forum on which the Court focused
	consists of "public property which the State has opened for use by
	the public as a place for expressive activity."  ... The courts
	have come to call this type of public forum a "limited public
	forum" or a "public forum by designation."  In such a forum, "the
	Constitution forbids a state to enforce certain exclusions from a
	forum generally open to the public even if it was not required to
	create the forum in the first place."  ...  A limited public forum
	may, depending on its nature and the nature of the state's action,
	be open to the general public for the general discussion of all
	topics, or there may be limitations on the groups allowed to use
	the forums or the topics that can be discussed....  Once the state
	has created a limited public forum, its ability to impose further
	constraints on the type of speech permitted in that forum is quite
	restricted: although a State is not required to indefinitely
	retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so
	it is bound by the same standards as apply to a traditional public
	forum.  Reasonable time, place and manner regulations are
	permissible, and a content-based prohibition must be narrowly
	drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest. 


> 	But I can't pin you down on this. Every time we get close, you 
> retreat into clouds of rhetoric like "I think it should be obvious to a 
> high-schooler". And you apparently misinterpret my inquiries for a more 
> coherent explanation as hostile and challenging. Too bad.

  Your peremptory declarations on the subject gave no ground for a 
presumption that you were unfamiliar with the doctrine, looking for 
guidance as you now claim.  You offered only a direct rejection of my 
claim but now say you simply do not understand.  Which is it?

 > 
> > 	*  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 ;
> 
> 	I have to admit that this demonology is a convenient way to cast
> not just recognized authorities but also your own peers in the role of
> oppressor. Isn't it possible that people just, um, disagree strongly with 
> you?

   You like arguing out of both sides of your mouth.  When Shea disagrees
with you sarcasticly, he is cast as a "neo-McCarthyist"; when I am
subjected to a ruthless personal attack, too bad you had it coming.  Isn't
it possible for you to see the sharp partisan inconsistency in your conduct? 

> > 	*  response by the victim of personal attack that discloses the text
> > of the attack is prohibited ; 
> 
> 	You've got it wrong. It should read "publicizing private e-mail 
> without the consent of the sender is wrong".

  No you've got it wrong.  There is no such thing as "private email" that
constitutes a personal attack, disclosing such an attack is fair use for 
the victim to defend himself as explicitly provided by the copyright act 
and settled understanding of privacy matters

> 
> > 	*  the "time, place, and manner" exception to the doctrine, and
> > alternative structural possibilities that this allows are too ambiguous
> > to understand.
> 
> 	Well, they're evidently too hard for you to _explain_, since it 
> was my attempt to understand what you meant by this that provoked this 
> whole nonresponse.

  Nice try.  I gave a serious response, which you just tossed aside. 
Further reasonable explanations are unjustified in a discussion with
someone who demonstrates a closed mind and continuing denial of
understanding while otherwise making peremptory declarations on the 
topic, ladened with duplicity and bereft of accuracy. 

  Is brazen arrogance on matters of deepest concern really the best that
can be expected from the executives of this nation's celebrated news
organizations? 
  
Vigdor Schreibman - FINS 



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

End of online-news-digest V1 #461
*********************************


From owner-online-news-digest@marketplace.com Mon Jan  8 01:06:37 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 BAA02171 ; for ; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 01:06:34 -0500