Re: Re: Freedom to Spew

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Michael Zara wrote:

> 
> > The denial of service angle is more direct than are willing to admit yet, as
> > both elements of the comparison are means of communication.  A DOS attack on
> > monkeyfist.com would end it's ability to serve it's prime public function,
> > the dissemination of information, in exactly the same way that absconding
> > with the entire printed run of a college newspaper would end it's ability to
> > disseminate information.
> 
> I like this, especially when I look at the taking of the whole print run in
> terms of what Bij noted as (metaphorically) shouting down somebody in one
> venue, as opposed to in ALL venues.  The problem with taking the entire run
> of the paper is not that Horowitz is stifled in this one venue (God knows --
> and only God knows why -- he has many others...) but that the *newspaper*
> itself -- all its contributors and its "corporate" (in the classical not
> business sense) editorial voice -- is silenced in its ONLY venue

Yes, but only for one day, yes? And they could pass out by hand?

It's clearly a marginal case *at best* (for the protesters). If they kept
it up systematically issue after issue (e.g., to "punish" the paper) that
would clearly be way wrong. One might consider the effect on advertising
revenue (by dipping the circulation, or causing the advertisers in that
issue to demand refunds (though school papers are rich) which, in turn
might lead to auto-censorship (as opposed to the exercise of good
judgment)).

And interesting question to ask *in determining the respect the protesters
had for free speech* (Rosenthal's answer: "none") is whether they'd steal
papers from a for sale paper stand? Or take them all day after day.

Remember that the students are stakeholders in the papers in a direct
way. It's not just their "community" paper, but they pay for it via
student fees. I think that complicates the issue.

Cheers,
Bijan.