Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!cbosgd!mhuxj!ihnp4!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: "FREE"dom of the net is costing over $600,000 this year Message-ID: <1842@nsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 04:27:48 EST Article-I.D.: nsc.1842 Posted: Thu Nov 8 04:27:48 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Nov-84 07:45:13 EST References: <201@looking.UUCP> <7@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <> Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) Organization: The Warlocks Cave, Western Annex Lines: 33 Keywords: Silly Summary: >In article <7@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: > >> To sum up: If everyone at your site has the right to post, except you, and >> this decision was made on the basis of unpopular opinions in your postings, >> your civil rights have been violated. Tim is making VERY broad assumptions here. Even assuming he is right and the administration of a machine doesn't have the right to decide who is allowed to use the resources of that machine, anyone who attempts to push this issue would be much more likely to lose network priviledges for ALL users than to get their own privliedges back. There are few to no precedents that can be safely applied to Usenet. This is one reason why we scream about copyright violations (see the Joe Bob discussions) as loudly as some of us do. We MIGHT be safe posting Joe Bob, but we might not. I'd rather not have a body of precedent sitting on top of usenet forcing us to do things, it is much nicer to work things out privately, cooperate publicly, and keep the lawyers as far away as possible. Tim might be right-- under some circumstances it might be considered a violation to your right of free speech to have your posting priviledges revoked, but I wouldn't count on it. You probably have as much right to scream at a technical magazine turning down your article for publishing or a newspaper turning down your letter to the editor. Both can also be considered restrictions of the first amendment on a very philosophical and intellectual level-- in reality nobody would take you very seriously. chuq -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA I'd know those eyes from a million years away....