Date: Sun, 19 Apr 92 18:58:22 PDT
From: [email protected](Jim Warren)
Subject: File 5--First Amendment semi-void in electronic frontier ??

IS POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS & ASSEMBLY PERMITTED IN THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER?

There is no purpose for which the freedoms of speech, press and
assembly are more essential than for unfettered participation in the
political process.  Yet, such personal freedoms -- permitted in 18th
Century voice, paper and face-to-face form -- may be severely
suppressed in electronic form.

      Although *personal* computer-based speech, press and assembly
      by employees, students and others is generally permitted in
      companies, schools and organizations, within reasonable limits
      of time and place, some folks say they must be monitored, accounted
      for, evaluated and reported -- or suppressed and prohibited --
      when they contain *personal* political expression or advocate
      political support or opposition for candidates or ballot issues.

There are experienced net-users who are political candidates who say this.

THE PROBLEM
 Most folks access the nets via company, school or institutional computer accounts.  Many are permitted to use that access for
personal email, personal messages broadcast to email-alias lists and personal participation in public and private teleconferences --
provided they do so without adversely impacting their work or official basis for having their account.

But:
Federal and state regulations governing political campaign disclosures
require that "contributions-in-kind" for or against candidates and
ballot measures be accounted for and their value reported, just like
cash donations.  Contributions-in-kind include such things as postage,
office space, printing, loans of furniture, office machines, etc.

They also include use of telephones, faxes, computers, computer
supplies, computer services, etc.

 Furthermore, donations by corporations are often restricted or
prohibited.  Most nonprofit organizations, including educational
institutions, are entirely prohibited from making political donations
-- or even lobbying for or against legislation (freedom is forfeited
for tax perks).

OVERT CORPORATE SUPPORT IS CLEARLY REGULATED

 If a corporation overtly underwrites political action by
intentionally providing labor, staff, facilities, equipment or
services to support or oppose a political campaign, then the
fair-market value ot those services or facilities must clearly be
reported as an in-kind contribution.

 (Such regulations appear to be much less enforced against unions and
schools, and appear to be not-at-all enforced against churches or
synagogues, regardless of how sectarian their political efforts may
be.)

THE 21st CENTURY QUESTION
Is *personal* electronic political speech, press and assembly protected at
work or school -- or is it a corporate or institutional political donation?

PERSONAL POLITICAL SPEECH APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY VOICE
 Within reasonable limits on time and place, citizens are not
*legally* prohibited from discussing politics with their office
associates, or in the company or school or church hallway, or in the
cafeteria or employee lounge, or in telephone conversations with
callers and professional associates with whom they have a personal
relationship as well as business association.  (Note:  This concerns
*legal* restrictions; *not* the issue of whether political discussions
are *wise* in a business, school or church setting.)

PERSONAL POLITICAL PRESS APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- BY PAPER
 It is also common for employees, students and teachers to use
*authorized* access to printers and copiers, to create and copy
*personal* leaflets about political issues and activities that they
hand to friends and post on company, school, church and synagogue
bulletin boards.  When they do so within the institutional limits
placed on their general personal use of equipment and bulletin boards,
the use has almost-certainly never been reported as an institutional
contribution-in-kind.

PERSONAL POLITICAL ASSEMBLY APPEARS PERMISSIBLE -- FACE-TO-FACE
It is common for corporations, schools, unions, religious
institutions, etc., to permit their their cafeterias, lounges, union
halls, meeting rooms and parking lots to be used for candidate
presentations, campaign debates and meet-the-candidate(s) receptions
-- as well as for both public and internal meetings to hear
presentations by incumbent elected represenatives and/or by leaders of
various community, legislative and regulatory groups.

 Participants are rarely charged for such use (except by sites that
routinely derive revenue from renting meeting space), and the value
of the meeting facility is rarely reported as an in-kind contribution to
the speaker(s).  In fact, it is considered to be "good institutional
citizenship" for organizations to provide their facilities for meetings
between citizens and their current and potential elected and appointed
representatives.

CAN CORPORATIONS AND SCHOOLS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT POLITICAL SPEECH?
 Now, consider those workplaces and educational institutions that permit
*personal* conversation, usually within reasonable limits on time and place.
And recognize that such personal speech may be one-to-one or within formal
or informal personal groups, e.g. a lunch group in the cafeteria.

 When such personal speech and personal assembly *is* permitted:
* Must those companies and institutions then prohibit all *personal*
employee or student conversation that has political content?
* Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy of political positions?
* Must they prohibit all *personal* advocacy for or against candidates?
* And if they don't prohibit it, must they monitor it and report it?
****************************************************************************
*  If corporations and schools can not or should not suppress all on-site  *
* personal speech and association having political content -- but must     *
* report all in-kind donations -- then how shall they evaluate the desks,  *
* offices, hallways, cafeterias, lounges, phones, phone bills, computers,  *
* and bulletin boards where personal political speech, personal political  *
* "press"/notices and personal political assembly occurs?  And, how shall  *
* they monitor such speech. press and assembly, so as to identify which    *
* campaign is receiving how much value in in-kind contributions?           *
****************************************************************************

AND, WHY SHOULD *ELECTRONIC* SPEECH AND *ELECTRONIC* ASSEMBLY BE DIFFERENT?
 When *personal* conversation and personal political expression is
permitted by voice or telephone in workplace, union hall or school,
why should personal political speech be prohibited when it by
electronic mail?

 When *personal* notices and copying and personal political leaflets
are permitted if they are on paper and/or posted on wall-mounted
bulletin boards, why should such personal political press be
prohibited when it is by electronic origin and distribution?

 When *personal* meetings and personal political discussion in groups
is permitted if it is face-to-face in the cafeteria, lounge or parking
lot of school or workplace, why should personal assembly with others
be prohibited when it is by electronic newsgroups or teleconferences?
****************************************************************************
*   TO THE EXTENT THAT employees and students, within their institutions,  *
* are permitted freedom of personal political expression by voice and in   *
* writing, and freedom of personal political association by face-to-face   *
* meeting, why should personal political speech, press or assembly be      *
* suppressed -- or monitored and reported -- merely when it is electronic? *

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.