Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site mit-eddie.MIT.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!jbs
From: jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Towards making hosts and their admin free from a criminal offence
Message-ID: <2058@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: Thu, 22-May-86 02:03:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.2058
Posted: Thu May 22 02:03:04 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 19:37:01 EDT
References: <611@bu-cs.UUCP> <164@comp.lancs.ac.uk> <20663@styx.UUCP> <1259@mulga.OZ> <2026@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <230@epimass.UUCP>
Reply-To: jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 20
Xref: watmath net.news:4895 net.politics:16270 net.legal:3488

In article <230@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
[all about how freedom of expresion really isn't totally free]

Joe, 

I think you misinterpreted the purpose of my article.  I was NOT to
proposing that someone has the right to post whatever they damn well
please.  If that was what I had intended to discuss, I would not have
posted it to net.mail (nor should your partially-accurate discussion
of limits on free speech have been).  

The issue I addressed was whether a Usenet user should be forced to
acknowledge his reponsiblity to obey whatever foriegn laws may apply
to his posting, whereever it may be distributed.  I argue that no such
responsibility exists.

I hope this makes the context and direction of the my original article
clearer.

Jeff Siegal