Re: Censorship and First Amendment vis-a-vis NETCOM.COM refuses to act against Anti-Semitism

[Samuel R. Kaplan <srk7a...>]

In article <3tpguu$ndb (at) cmcl2(dot)NYU(dot)EDU>,
Steven Mitchell Schiffman, MA, JD, LLM <SCHIFFMN (at) IS2(dot)NYU(dot)EDU> 
wrote:
>The notion that individuals can practice censorship is outrageous.  Let's
>be accurate:  censorship is the act of government unilaterally editing
>what is normally considered free and open speech.  It is important to
>realize that the First Amendment ONLY relates to the individual vis-a-vis
>the power or behavior of the State, be it on the federal, state or local
>levels.  

You are correct, although the First Amendment affects the approach of
our society toward speech.

>In reality, when it relates to individuals vis-a-vis individuals or
>other non-governmental entities such as corporations or associations, one
>should define it as it really is:  to wit, responsible editing.

That would be true if the on-line services wish to see themselves as
publishers, responsible for the content, but with the sheer volume of
postings, that is not the likely role they seek.  Rather they would
prefer to be sponsors of public fora where free exchanges of views can
be held WITHOUT LIABILITY by the sponsor.

>The U.S.Supreme Court settled the issue of free speech many years ago:
>private speech deserves protection; however, commercial speech does not.
>Moreover, the high court also found that private speech, under certain
>circumstances, does not have the benefit of total and absolute 
>protection, to wit, "screaming fire in a crowded, darkened, theatre".

There is no screaming fire in a crowded theater issue here, since no
one is crying fire, but rather is expressing a minority opinion that
is particularly distasteful.

>With respect to that drech who intentionally tries to cause emotional
>harm to the bona fide users of #Israel (such as my 14 year old daughter,
>Myra/Miriam), Netcom does have the right to sanction this excuse of a
>human being.   Nobody, it appears, is arguing that "it" should be removed
>or banned from accessing Netcom's network; however, they do have the
>social and moral responsibility to insist that outrageous behavior be
>utilized in an environment that concurs with such actions.

Netcom suggested how your daughter, or anyone could avoid the posting,
by using the /ignore command.  We certainly don't want our public fora
restricted to views that can only be expressed in the presence of
children.

>The excuse that Netcom uses for its lack of action is lame.  As a private
>company, they have the right to limit access to whomever they please.  
>They appear not to be a regulated common carrier, thus they can accept or
>reject any subscriber for any reason, at their own discretion. 

They may the right, but may not want the liability or responsibility
for statements made when they take responsibility for content.
Prodigy was recently held to a higher standard than Compuserve or AOL
because it tries to control content.  I think Netcom acted both
responsibly and prudently, given the current legal situation, to
guarantee freedom of speech while protecting its users, based on the
facts as presented.
--
*************************************************************************
                              Sam Kaplan
           "Maturity is no longer seeing every passing temptation 
                       as a missed opportunity."