The First Amendment reads, in part: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" (Random House 1939). This sounds marvelous, but, in fact, the framers of the Constitution were all white men of wealth and power and, in reality, "free speech" for all intents and purposes meant the speech which they exchanged with one another. It is one thing to declare that "the people" have the right to free speech, but it is another thing when the channels of communication are owned and controlled by an elite of the wealthy and the powerful. In the 18th century, mass communications consisted of newspapers, which were controlled by a few. Today, over two hundred years later, communications media are certainly much more diverse, but still a relative few of the most wealthy and powerful control the most influential means of communication--newspapers, motion pictures, radio, television, cable systems, and so on.
However, today, because of the Internet, individuals have the capability of addressing mass audiences through their computers and modems. I have such a computer and modem, and I use it to express myself on a variety of newsgroups with audiences across the nation and around the world.
There are two types of newsgroups on the Internet--the censored (or "moderated") newsgroup and the uncensored or unmoderated newsgroup. The moderated group is overseen by a moderator or group of moderators who, in effect, censor the content of the messages sent into the group by computer users. They can censor however they wish, usually censoring out what is known as "flaming," or insulting comments, off-topic comments, comments sent to a great number of newsgroups at once, and so on. When, how and why they censor is up to them. On the uncensored newsgroup, on the other hand, any message anybody sends in whatsoe...