Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Fooling the censors Message-ID: <1991Mar16.051537.14852@alphalpha.com> Date: 16 Mar 91 05:15:37 GMT References: <532@iczer-1.UUCP> <1991Mar13.033143.29172@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Mar13.061240.9825@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <138@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com> Organization: asi Lines: 17 In article <138@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com> gray@s5000.rsvl.unisys.com (Bill Gray x2128) writes: >But I believe the upline entity was a tax-supported institution. If that is >true, it may be worthwhile to ask why rec.autos (for example) is worthy of >a tax subsidy and alt.sex.pictures is not. One could dwell on the damage The complicated answer is that being tax-supported doesn't change things in the slightest. You still have limited resources and the sysadmin still has the right to make the decisions. The simple answer is that rec.autos is legal and alt.sex.pictures is illegal. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.