1997-12-23 - Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f0f58f4f0612eba59375a5231625d7827d8e543738acc1ef914aed71ea92dfed
Message ID: <T6F6He32w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <199712230508.AAA10976@users.invweb.net>
UTC Datetime: 1997-12-23 05:50:35 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:50:35 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 13:50:35 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks
In-Reply-To: <199712230508.AAA10976@users.invweb.net>
Message-ID: <T6F6He32w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@invweb.net> writes:

> In <D7D6He29w165w@bwalk.dm.com>, on 12/22/97
>    at 11:26 PM, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said:
>
> >berezina@qed.net (Paul Spirito) writes:
>
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:04:47 -0800, David Honig wrote:
> >>
> >> >Note that if the library in question were not arm of the State,
> >> >noone would have any First Amendment claim.
> >> >
> >> >This is reminiscent of TM's recent (controversial) analysis of the fired
> >> >county trashworker/author,
> >> >and suggests a clearer example of the confusion caused by State as =
> >> Employer:
> >>
> >> It's true that in the absence of public libraries this would not be an
> >> issue; however, it is an example of the state acting as sovereign, not
> >> employer. We're concerned with the right of patrons to access material, &
> >> they are not state employees. The situation is analogous to a public =
> >> park:
> >> just because the state owns it, does that mean it can forbid, say, =
> >> criticism
> >> of the state in it? No, of course not, though it has broader discretion =
> >> in
> >> limiting the speech of public employees in the park, while on-duty.
>
> >Why should any state be in the business of owning and running any parks?
> >We pay $60/year for a family membership in an excellent private park.
> >Most public parks in NYC are extremely unpleasant and dangerous places.
>
> I find it quite amazing that anyone would live in a place where you had to
> pay to see grass and trees.

I pay (the NYC+NYS income taxes) for the right to see the grass and the trees
in Central Park.  I haven't been there in years, but I hear every once in a
while about folks getting robbed, raped, and killed there. My late mother was
involved with the Central Park conservancy, so I know that unbelieavable
amounts of $$$ from taxes and private donations are used for patronage jobs
or get stolen outright. If it were up to me, I'd have the fucking thing
paved over/filled up and developed into lots of rental apartment units and a
few manageably small privatized parks.

The $60/annum we pay for the garden membership is a tiny fraction of the taxes
we pay; and we get a huge park with french-style flower beds, and an english-
style forest, a fish pond, one of the best rose gardens in the country, etc
- more stuff that one can see in a single day. The kids love it. I think it's
an excellent bargain, and less than we spend occasionally on a single dinner.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps






Thread