THE PRODIGY SAGA CONTINUED....REDUX....ENCORE....

     [Prodigy continued to be a main subject of conversation on the  net over
     the past two weeks.  Here is a selection of one exchange of vie ws on
     comp.org.eff.talk.]
     --
     From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)

     In article <14193.281F5781@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG>
     Tom.Jennings@f111.n125.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Tom Jennings) writes:
     >It's easy to support free-speech issues on "safe" subjects
     >-- the real test is when it is an unpopular one, or even one
     >you don't agree with.

     I agree with this 100%.  It's one of the strongest parts of my personal
     philosophy.

     But this is not a free-speech issue, so it is not relevant.

     People do not understand that freedom of the press (and Prodigy is press)
     has two very important components:
          a) Nobody can tell you what not to print (freedom from censorship)
          b) Nobody can tell you what *to* print.  (editorial control)

     Both are important.   To insist that Prodigy allow gay/lesbian discussion
     against their will is not much different from forbidding them from having
     gay/lesbian discussion if they want it.

     Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.  That's no
     law in *either* direction.

     --

     From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
     In-Reply-To: brad@looking.on.ca's message of 4 May 91

     Well sorry, Brad, but it's not clear to many of us that a service like
     Prodigy is self-evidently "press", as you seem to claim.  In the part
     of the service which presents (publishes) advertisements (mostly!) and
     Prodigy-initiated or Prodigy-contracted informative articles (rarely),
     they would seem to deserve the same protections offered to the print
     and broadcast media.

     But in their provision of email service they would seem to be merely a
     by-subscription carrier, and their unpleasant lack of interfaces to
     other carriers does not disguise that fact.  I don't see why the same
     protections offered to mail and telephone subscribers shouldn't apply.
     And I don't see why bulletin boards to which subscribers are welcome to
     contribute shouldn't be considered either (1) simply useful extensions
     of email, or (2) publishing ventures, but ones in which the subscribers
     are the publishers and Prodigy remains the carrier.

     Isn't some scheme like this simple and fair enough to be worth
     codifying as law, and the added marketability of email and bulletin
     boards sufficient to encourage commercial services to provide them
     even if they aren't allowed to control the contents?

     (By the way, I think the trashy, ad-oriented nature of Prodigy has
     encouraged many of us to criticize them for practices that would
     raise few complaints on GEnie, CIS, etc.  They may be doing us a
     real service.)
     --
     From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)

     I have seen no proof of Prodigy doing anything but charge for their E-mail.
     They are not press, but an E-mail provider, when it comes to E-mail.

     But in all the public areas of the system, they are indeed press, and
     have explicitly said and acted in such a fashion at all times as far as I
     can tell.  I am not sure how other people have gotten any other impression.

     Prodigy screens everything posted in the public areas.  It's 100% edited.
     How can you consider them anything but press?
     --
     [The discussion continues in comp.org.eff.talk.]


     Ref: FidoNews 8-31 (05-Aug-1991)
     http://195.226.109.55/jhassler/wif/doks/fnews/fido831.txt
     By: Tom Jennings - Brad Templeton - Lee Story