Xref: utzoo misc.misc:2231 news.misc:1170
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!think!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!nusdhub!rwhite
From: rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.)
Newsgroups: misc.misc,news.misc
Subject: Re: Courtesy: was Re: The solution to: Re: "We don't get that newsgroup
Message-ID: <584@nusdhub.UUCP>
Date: 19 Jan 88 20:48:00 GMT
References: <505@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <112@falkor.UUCP> <1089@hao.ucar.edu> <707@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Organization: National University, San Diego
Lines: 28
Summary: This again!!!! argh.......
	 This Issue Is VERY simple:

In article <707@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
	A lot of stuff about, why should a site be "allowed" to decide
	what it carries.  [and moaning about censorship]

This issue is very simple to settle:
DISCLAIMER:  The following is an EXAMPLE only, and does not represent
	my or my employers viewpoint an any way AT ALL.
	If I said:
	"Webber, I require you to load the entire body of natzi propaganda
into your hard disk.  I require you to do it now.  You may optionally 
include any decenting opinions you desire.  You must keep it there until
I say otherwise"

	You would [most likely] tell me to blow off.  "I" don't have
_ANY_ "right" to you, your machine, your property, or your resources.
In this instance your "right" to privacy, property, and the like 
enjoy a priority to my "right" to have my views heard in a public
forum.
	In the common law of the United States, the UK, and all
"western" nations [and most likely the whole world] all "rights"
are ranked by priorities.  A good, if dumb, obvious example would
be:
	I have a "right" to own and discharge fire-arms.
	You have a "right" NOT to be gunned down in the streets.

Guess which "right" generally holds greatest priority??? ;-)

Rob.