Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:05:45 -0500 From: "Rodney D. Coates" Reply-To: coatesrd@casmail.muohio.edu Organization: Miami University To: llurch@networking.stanford.edu Subject: Re: Arrogance of State Governor -South Dakota - or how to squash Native Am. Protest References: It is always a question of perception of who is wrong or inaccurate, my posts regarding the arrogance of the South Dakota Govenor came from the specific group which was organizing the petition drive. While Mr. Graves came from the new york times...well sir..i shall continue to rely upon those on the scene rather than those who merely report the news..different vantage points do produce different versions of reality..and here is another version from the native americans themselves: Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 08:28:51 -0800 (PST) From: swillett@ro.com Subj: Is silence Golden? Mailing List: NativeWeb FOR MEDIA DISTRIBUTION: State of South Dakota Attempts Silencing of Internet Petitioners by J. Peiffer Willett In an unprecedented move, the State of South Dakota has blocked the personal Internet E-Mail address of a Native American activist to avoid a flood of petition signatures in opposition of the state's effort to limit Native American access to Sacred sites and prohibit numbers (in excess of 40) of Native Americans from congregating. The petitions were in response to an Internet Alert that indicated a meeting would take place today December 3, in Pierre South Dakota to include both Representative Volski and the Representative from Pine Ridge, as well as Arvol Looking Horse, Joe Chases Horses and other Native Leaders. The indicated intent of the hearing was the review of an earlier court order that overturned, at a state level, President Clinton's 1996 Executive Order regarding Freedom of Religion. States are not bound to adhere to an executive order. Questions arise with the action of the State blocking E-Mail petitions. Are Internet petitioners availed "equal access" to state designated representatives? Is E-Mail to be considered less credible, or a hoax, even deemed harassment by officials, though verification of signatories is available? Are Internet petitioners than afforded less than those who sign hard-copy petitions? E-Mail is both economically advantageous to many and a much faster means of having public opinion available in a timely fashion. Is the action of South Dakota's not an effort to curtail the constitutional rights of not only constituents, but those most likely to be affected by the legislative and judicial whims, the Native American populace? If the South Dakota legislature is allowed to restrict access to sites such as Bear Butte the impact will far exceed the concerns of only residents of that state. Native American religious practices are not bound by Federal or State defined political boundaries. So then, is it not feasible to not only allow but expect an outcry from more than within the State? The offenders Internet Service Provider was contacted by South Dakota State officials and asked to curtail the senders activity. When the Service Provider refused to interfere with the personal and private activity of a customer and supported their right to freedom of expression...other means were taken to allay the flood of messages. In a six o'clock CST newscast the South Dakota governor, Bill Janklow, announced that the state will organize committees to include Native people in an effort to address welfare reform, preservation of sacred site status and other issues of import. Perhaps a topic for inclusion would be the State's right to limit the voice of those on the Internet.