Xref: utzoo soc.motss:19942 talk.rumors:3151 news.admin:6806 news.misc:3575 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!nosc!simasd!root From: root@simasd.UUCP (Jay Curtis) Newsgroups: soc.motss,talk.rumors,news.admin,news.misc Subject: Re: USENET site admin responsibilities (was: Re: Censorship is for Wusses) Message-ID: <16@simasd.UUCP> Date: 9 Sep 89 21:24:50 GMT References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> Reply-To: jcurtis@simasd.UUCP (Jay Curtis) Organization: Shore Intermediate Maintenance Activity, San Diego, CA Lines: 91 In article <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >The discussion that has evolved, however, is not affected by these >facts, as it is a general discussion of the philosophy of freedom, >free speech in particular. > >I consider free speech to take precedence over privileged communication. > >A person who is barred from the net for his opinions is no different >from a person who is barred from the newspapers for his opinions. > Fist, losing an account on ONE machine does not equate to being "barred from the net". There is no net-wide edict saying that this person is not allowed to have an account or to post. That person would just have to make arrangements to use an account on another machine. There isn't a system on the net that scans the contents of all the postings and refuses to forward them because of their contents or authors. (Okay, at least none that *I* know of. 8) ) >You can go make mud-pies with your talk of privilege; once a medium is >controlled, even by those who own it, it is no longer a place for free >speech. You are right, as far as you go. Yes free speech is a right. However, No-one is going to tell me that I have to propogate YOUR ideas at my expense. If I own a publishing company, I don't have to print and distribute your ideas. I have the right to say find another publisher. I am providing a service. Other people also provide this service. >(If I were you, I'd consider not making fun of the "I may not agree >with what you say but I'd die to protect your right to say it," cliche, >since some of us actually mean it, and have backed that up with >military service.) > A lot of people have served in the U.S. Military. I am one of them. I am also a Sys. Admin on a machine running Usenet news. As such, I understand the problems of the administration at this site. I am allowed to run Usenet news on this system only so long as I can keep it out of the limelight. This means that I have to be very sensitive to the responses to articles posted from my site. It is real easy to sit back and say "I may not agree...say it". Damned hard when the burden of responsibility is on you! Just having been in the service doesn't give you the right to criticize other peoples efforts in this area. There are way to many hypocrits hiding behind this line of reasoning as it is! > >>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. > >As for purchasing access, he did so by, as I presume he does annually, >sending them the check for his tuition money. Again, your lawyers >may win this one, but the lawyers don't deal in freedom, only the >letters in the law books that they choose to invoke. > My understanding from the colleges in California is that you are purchasing computer time for School related work. Usenet news does not in most cases qualify. It is a benefit, an added bonus that could very well go away if the management were made to believe that it was more of a liability than not. Colleges have a hell of a time getting sufficient funding to provide the services that they do. In this time of constant budget cuts, Usenet news cannot afford any adverse publicity at most installations. >>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". > >Bought a slave lately? > I am disappointed. This is a common tactic used by people who really have no arguement to offer. If you can't find a comeback related to the current arguement, bring up a highly inflamitory, offensive subject and try to link it to the opposition! Really, Blair, I had expected better from you. >I don't have the power to insist, except rhetorically. I only point >out the facts so that freedom shall not perish from this earth. > Freedom has not perished. Anyone who loses their account on a particular machine is "free" to either purchase his own machine or make arrangements for an account on someone else's machine. Evidence of this is the infamous Clay Bond of soc.motss, alt.sex fame. When his account was removed, he aquired an account on another machine and is still active on Usenet. > --Blair > "It's always nice to be given > an opportunity to paraphrase > Lincoln."