Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.dal.ca!aucs!880139h
From: 880139h@aucs.uucp (Rob Hutten)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: What constitutes abuse of the net?
Message-ID: <1989Dec13.192220.16198@aucs.uucp>
Date: 13 Dec 89 19:22:20 GMT
References: <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> <6688@tank.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Acadia University - School of Computer Science
Lines: 48

scb1@tank.uchicago.edu (Sam Blackman) writes:

>In article <37942@ames.arc.nasa.gov> hettinger@krypton.arc.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>	Am I right or wrong?  What constitutes abuse of the net?
>>      [ Description of an obscene post involving sexual molesting of childern]

>If you see the net as I see it, that is, as a communications pathway like
>any other, then restricting 'speech' based on the the way it is perceived
>by some is akin to violation of that person's 1st Amendment rights.  Playboy,
>Penthouse, etc. all contain material (jokes, stories, pictures, etc.) that
>many deem "in poor taste" or "offensive" or "pornographic" however they
>maintain no right to deprive those who wish to indulge in these materials
>of those materials.  Perhaps this is just an overly wordy way of stating
>the obvious comment, "If you don't like it, don't read it"  

This argument is somewhat flawed.  The comparison of rec.humor to a 
pornographic magazine is faulty because when one purchases a Penthouse,
one knows EXACTLY what will be in it.  I read rec.humor regularly for the
occasional witty joke, but I take for granted that it will not contain
child pornography.  I would agree to your point if the offending article
was posted in alt.tasteless; then I could not complain because I was
duely warned.  Likewise, if it had been rot-13ed I would have been prepared
for something offensive.  The offensive posting to rec.humor  is akin to 
having a scene of explicit sexual assault of a child in a comic book
that can be bought in any corner store.  The poster's main offence was
not then the subject material of the so-called humor, but the fact that
is was posted to a general-interest newsgroup where it could be read by 
anyone.

>I honestly feel that you request to restrict the jokesters net privledges
>was extremely rash.  A kindly admonishment on your part, and a pledge,
>perhaps on his to put something like "offensive" in the Keywords line
>so that you might fiter these out, would have been a much better (IMHO)
>solution.

>Sam

I agree.  As much as I personally would like to see this sort of posting
banned, I don't feel we as subscribers have any right to restrict 
the priviledges of another.

- rh
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------
" Outside in the cold distance a wildcat did growl           | Rob Hutten 
  two riders were approaching and the wind began to howl..." | 880139@aucs.uucp
-------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------