REALLY!

[Bill Kennedy]

In article <1989Aug22.045207.26952 at i88.isc.com> rayd at i88.isc.com (Ray Dueland) writes:
>In article <21361 at paris.ics.uci.edu> David A. Honig <honig at ics.uci.edu> writes:
>>ATT = SPINELESS CENSORSHIP
>
>Come on everybody, cross post to comp.sys.att!!!!  For those not familiar
>with cross-posting, edit the "Newsgroups:" line and put "comp.sys.att," FIRST!
>(with no spaces; only a comma separating the groups) If att is going to deny
>us alt.drugs, let us deny them comp.sys.att!

So somehow the abduction of a newsgroup, in a fit of righteous indignation,
will bring AT&T to its knees for deciding what groups they will pay to
propagate.  Neither this site nor my home site carry alt.drugs because there
isn't a soul at either site or downstream that wants to read it.  Both sites
carry comp.sys.att because there are numerous readers at each site and
downstream.

As the one who pays the LD for the sites I administer, I reserve the right
to not carry a group that nobody wants to read.  Both inebriae and ssbn
carry groups that I don't read, but that others do.  I arbitrarily do not
carry some groups (talk, rec, soc, alt) that only downstream sites want
because they can pick them up from a site who does carry them.  I won't pay
for them at the sites I pay for.  I see this as analogous to AT&T's decision.
Admittedly, AT&T has deeper pockets than I do, but I don't see the substance
of the issue as all that different.

So you're going to punish the rest of us who choose not to read alt.drugs
but want to read comp.sys.att by crossposting.  You're going to assert your
rights by depriving us of ours.  You're going to teach AT&T a lesson and
punish them for deciding how they will allocate their corporate resources.
It appears to me to be similar to demanding unpaid equal advertising time
in one periodical because another refuses to carry your unpaid advertising.
I don't suggest that alt.drugs is advertising, it's just an analogy.  You
can not claim censorship unless someone actively restrains your freedom of
speech.  AT&T isn't doing that at all, they are just refusing to pay for its
propagation.  You can speak all you want, anyone who wants to can propagate
it, anyone who doesn't want to propagate it (on their money, not yours)
doesn't have to.  If you would pay for propagation within AT&T and they
refused your money I think you'd have a beef.  In the mean time,  please do
not confuse your freedom of expression with our freedom of choice.

I'm not remotely affiliated with AT&T other than a monthly telephone bill
and a reader of comp.sys.att.
-- 
Bill Kennedy    {texbell,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
                bill at ssbn.WLK.COM  or attmail!ssbn!bill