Xref: utzoo talk.rumors:3109 news.admin:6750 news.misc:3557
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!ogccse!cvedc!nosun!qiclab!leonard
From: leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: talk.rumors,news.admin,news.misc
Subject: Re: USENET site admin responsibilities (was: Re: Censorship is for Wusses)
Message-ID: <2591@qiclab.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 89 21:47:33 GMT
References: <3659@uwovax.uwo.ca> <13316@nsc.nsc.com> <3988@buengc.BU.EDU> <1989Sep3.043558.9447@xenitec.uucp> <4030@buengc.BU.EDU> <188@temvax.UUCP> <1989Sep3.225305.9042@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson)
Organization: Qic Laboratories, Portland, Oregon.
Lines: 22

As has been pointed out *many* times before, freedom of *speech* is not
the proper model for the net. Freedom of the *press* is.

You no more have the "right" to post anything you want from *someone
else's* site than you do to publish anything you want on someone else's
press/radio_station/tv_station.

If a site wishes to revoke someone's access, that is the same as a paper
refusing to accept an articler for publication.

If you want unrestricted posting, get your own machine. You do *not*
have the right to use *someone else's* resources (and name!) to spread
your views. 

Under this model, the only time you'd be violating rights is the *rare*
occasion when someone starts canceling somebody else's postings.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools.
Let's start with typewriters." -- Solomon Short