Xref: utzoo soc.motss:19626 talk.rumors:3092 news.admin:6710 news.misc:3531 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!xenitec!edhew From: edhew@xenitec.uucp (Ed Hew) Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.rumors,news.admin,news.misc Subject: USENET site admin responsibilities (was: Re: Censorship is for Wusses) Summary: admin's have duties... (this has nothing to do with censorship) Keywords: censorship, idiocity, survival, USENET, responsibility Message-ID: <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> Date: 3 Sep 89 04:35:58 GMT References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> Reply-To: edhew@xenitec.UUCP (Ed Hew) Followup-To: news.misc Organization: Xenitec Consulting Services, Kitchener, ON Lines: 110 I am tempted to reply by saying something like: "It seems that you consider the right of one person to post sniveling idiotic comments under other names to be paramount over the rights and obligations of a system administrator to preserve the availability of USENET news for 1/4 the population of the country." but instead, I will explain my reasoning: In article <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > An open letter to all usenet administrators: Ah, good; we've targeted the appropriate group. >>From article <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca>, by reggers@uwovax.uwo.ca (Reg Quinton): >>& It seems that everyone in North America, if not the entire free speaking >>& world has seen the inappropriate postings by a student by the name of >>& Alexander Pruss who goes by the handle satan. Many have been rightly >>& offended and have notified me (as news manager) as well as our postmaster. >>& In fact the Computing Centre Director has received telephone calls >>& complaining about this fellow! >>& >>& This is to advise everyone that the problem has been brought to our >>& attention and is/will be dealt with. Rest assured we do not believe that >>& this kind of behaviour is acceptable and it will not be tolerated. >>& >>& Your patience would be appreciated. >>& >>& I am, >>& >>& News Manager Ummm, you have deleted the portion of Mr. Quinton's posting which dealt with the fact that he is running news unofficially, and thereby implying that if some fool goes out of his way to make waves for the people charged with getting the funds for keeping this project alive, then it just might get zapped. Further, you neglect the fact that in Ontario this comes on the heals of a debate amoungst those who allocate University Computing facility budgets determining whether USENET access should be condoned and financially supported by the Canadian taxpayer at all. It was rumoured to be a close decision last time. Would you prefer to have backbone after backbone drop off the 'NET? What would that do to the "rights of the user", whom you purport to defend? What would that do to "Free Speach"? You tend to suggest that the right of this one individual (Mr. Pruss) to post in his questionable fashion is much more important than the opportunity of millions of potential 'NET readers to access USENET as it precariously exists today. If Mr. Pruss's actions zapped *your* 'NET access, would you still speak as you did? >Well, to quote one of our greater statesmen, "who the hell do you >think YOU are." (Okay, so I quote only the Chirelles.) I am not he, but I speculate that he may be one instructed that he may run USENET news as long as there is no adverse publicity. >Content of messages on usenet is a priori not a concern. Delivery >of them and the nuisance of abuse of the net, however, is. Especially when the bill-payers get miffed. >The fact that Mr. Pruss wants to make satanic statements is irrelevant >to his access. The meager "offense" that some have felt at his >opinions, and expressed to you, is nothing when compared to the great >disservice to free speech and unfettered communication that you commit >by censoring Mr. Pruss. If he committed some offense directed to harm >a particular person, or for the purpose of overloading or misusing >internet resources, then you have call to perform administrative >policing of his activity. However, he didn't; therefore, you don't. Mr. Pruss apparantly (my information is based on the UWO newsadmin's posting) has performed actions which jeapordize the normal access to facilities that many currently enjoy. I fully appreciate why action to mitigate this damage has been taken. also... Mr. Pruss has no more right to access that particular machine without explicit permission than I have to remove your car from your driveway and demolish it without *your* explicit permission. The difference is that I don't claim to have a right to do so. Please investigate the concept of property rights as generally accepted by most non-communists. >I must insist that you restore his access and let the thinking people >who populate this medium decide whether to accept his writings or not. Since when is the University of Western Ontario a free public access site? Perhaps if you feel this strongly you might want to buy him a box, some software, and pay his phone bill to uunet. >I ask that all who agree insist as well, in writing. I respectfully suggest that you are way out of line. I won't tell you what to do with your property, and perhaps you may wish to reconsider your demand that others deal with *theirs* as *you* "insist". > --Blair Please note: followup to news.misc Ed. A. Hew Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # This posting has absolutely nothing to do with what I do for a living.