Xref: utzoo news.misc:1506 news.admin:2508 comp.misc:2570
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mandrill!hal!ncoast!fmsrl7!mibte!uisc1!root
From: root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user)
Newsgroups: news.misc,news.admin,comp.misc
Subject: Re: HELP ME (*Oh, what a flame for JJ@Portal*)
Summary: And another one for government intervention...
Message-ID: <64@uisc1.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jun 88 17:24:56 GMT
References: <034449.2147405664@cc.usu.edu> <640002@hpcvlx.HP.COM> <1101@micomvax.UUCP>
Organization: Unicorn Information Systems Corp, Detroit, MI, USA
Lines: 69

In article <1101@micomvax.UUCP>, ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes:
> 
> Why should we as a community, allow individual sites to profit from this
> otherwise altruistic network while showing *no* control over how their
> customers use it.
> 
> It would not seem unreasonable for an organisation profitting *directly*
> from USENET to at least be required to monitor the output from their
> fee-paying customers (and to be charged by the USENET community for their
> use ???).

Great idea! Have you sent in your money yet? Oh, I see. That is supposed to
apply only to public access systems but not to you, right?

> How about a filter to look for excessive posting or cross-posting which
> would cause system administration to be flagged prior to the articles going
> out?

And who would determine what's excessive? Ray Dunn of course, right?

> Censorship?  Perhaps, but we must create accountability.

Yes, I have heard that before. I think there is a group in power in South
Africa right now that's using a similar argument. "But that's different," I
hear you say. Sorry, but selective freedom of expression doesn't work.

> If these articles
> had been truly seditious, or incitement to whatever, who would have been
> responsible? 

But they weren't. The simple fact is that using your logic, we'd have to
shut down the whole network. You can come up with "what if's" to create
any situation, no matter how good and secure the network was, so the only
real alternative is to shut down the network. And frankly, I like the network
as it is. Well, there IS another alternative. If YOU feel that you might go
to jail because of what someone else posts, either monitor everything that
comes onto your system, or disconnect your newsfeed. But trying to censor US
because your overactive imagination envisions you charged with treason ain't
the answer.

> Who knows?  I know *I* don't want to lose my net feed because my management
> decides the legal risks are not worth it, or that they don't want to pay
> for this potentially hazardous dribble.

And presumably you wouldn't want your potentially hazardous dribble censored
either. So what we've reduced your dribble to is that you want others to
censor (or preferably delete entirely) their users, but you don't want your
management to do the same to you.

You know what people are called that engage in that kind of double-talk?
Hypocrites!

> Normally there is a *reasonable* level of accountability because the posters
> are employees, or students, of the host site's administration.  With public
> access sites, there is virtually no implied restraint.

There clearly isn't in a commercial environment either, or at least nobody
censored your post, did they?

> How about *all* users being required to sign a contract acknowledging their
> legal obligations, plus a few additional obligations and responsibilities
> that we as a network community could stipulate?

Okay, and how about fingerprinting them while we're about it. Even better,
though, since we're assuming everybody is potentially guilty even before they
do something wrong, why don't we just throw'em all in jail right away and
throw away the key. At least we'll know that they won't post something Ray
Dunn won't find offensive.

What would you Canadians do without government intervention?