Date   : Wed, 30 May 1984 0505 :00EDT (Wednesday)
From   : George.Wood@CMU-CS-A.ARPA
Subject: Re: erh's comments on BBS issue

Your examples of exceptions to the first ammendment are outrageous:  the
'confidentiality' afforded doctor-patient and attorney-client relations
'protects' those relations from outsiders by making them priviliged
communications; i.e.  one cannot be required to report them in court
testimony.  But it does not provide any prohibition of the publication
of information regarding them, or justification of prior censorship.
Like anything published, injured parties can sue for damages incurred
by the publication, but suit is quite different from prior constraint
of publication.  Company secrets can be protected by laws against fraud,
but should not be the bais of prior censorship, lest illegal acts or
blunders like the Pinto's notorious gas tank design be shrouded from
publication and public scrutiny by making it a company secret.
       At issue is whether the government (much less AT&T) should have
the right to confiscate or impound a means of publication (press, bb,
etc.)  to prevent future publication (does impounding a bbs violate
freedom of speech), not whether AT&T has a right to sue for damages.
From the other side, this issue is whether first ammendment rights
should extend to bbs.  A better example, if one wishes to argue about
the limits of the first ammendment would be one which shows that the
right to free speech is not, or should not be, absolute:  No one has a
right to shout 'fire' in a crouded theater.