Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!oliveb!pyramid!voder!apple!ems From: ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) Newsgroups: news.misc,soc.women Subject: Re: retraction Message-ID: <890@apple.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jun-87 14:13:39 EDT Article-I.D.: apple.890 Posted: Mon Jun 1 14:13:39 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jun-87 01:38:49 EDT References: <9729@clyde.ATT.COM> <3767@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, USA Lines: 64 Summary: Now were getting somewhere ... Xref: mnetor news.misc:502 soc.women:4151 In article <3788@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > In article <16895@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > > > >So, Mark, could you supply more details on what happened at the Well, > >why you think they turned off your account, and whether you think they > >were justified? Keep in mind that the Well is not a Federally funded > >operation in any sense of the word. > > I've reported what they told me. If you want further details, why not > ask some of the people from the Well who have been making personal attacks > on me here, to supply the details here instead? I'm interested to know > why they would censor feminist or egalitarian views, but not censor porn, > obscenity or swastikas. Well 'Well' ? Is this assertion true? Did you pull the account for the political views of the user? If so, I would expect it to be a moral injustus, but is it illegal? Is 'Well' a public company? And does it support 'porn, obscenity, or swastikas'? (I'm not sure how to post a swastika. I could make on on my Mac if I worked at it, but it aint in the ASCII set. I suppose one could paste it together out of dashes and pipes.) > The Well got its hardware from tax exempt entities called NETI and Point > Foundation. It got its software free on a beta test and probably got a > free newsfeed. It resells the resources it got for free, and provides > a service for Libertarians and those whose views agree with those of > Well management. They refused to sell their services to me because my > views differed from theirs. Did Well buy the hardware or was it donated? If bought, I see no importance to the legal nature of the source. Many beta test sites take software on a free or low payment basis in exchange for the burden of debugging. There are many other sites that pay full price for SW licences and take beta SW because it is {earlier dilivery, has a needed feature, more fun, etc.}. To the best of my knowledge, noone charges their neighbor for a newsfeed. Conclusion? To me, at least, the issue of free beta software and free newsfeed is not important. The issue of a tax exempt organization providing the HW is. If it was a donation, things could be sticky. If it was a purchase from NETI, then it is a non-issue. If well is a private business run as such it can (and must) set it's own guidlines for what is acceptable behaviour. Even if it sells time publicly, I would not expect it to be bound to provide survices to all comers. But if it recieves any public subsidy I think the rules change... Does anyone know the legal organization of the Well? What does it's charter say? A parallel - If I go down to the local Red Neck newspaper and try to buy ad copy space for a full page promotion of the local Comunist Party rally; I would expect to be denied on the grounds of editorial licence. Similarly, a KKK anouncement in the local Black Journal would also be denied. How is this different from a site, selling time, showing the same editorial control/oppression? -- E. Michael Smith ...!sun!apple!ems 'If you can dream it, you can do it' Walt Disney This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)