Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ucla-cime.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cime!kyle From: kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) Newsgroups: net.news,net.flame Subject: Re: To: persons offended by ucla-cs!alex Message-ID: <138@ucla-cime.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 04:07:49 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cim.138 Posted: Fri Jul 5 04:07:49 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 00:43:01 EDT References: <1666@amdahl.UUCP> <131@ucla-cime.UUCP> <2896@nsc.UUCP> <134@ucla-cime.UUCP> <196@watmum.UUCP> Reply-To: kyle@ucla-cime.UUCP (Kyle D. Henriksen) Organization: Crump Institute, UCLA Lines: 52 Xref: watmath net.news:3603 net.flame:11048 Summary: >From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) >Well, by your argument, I obviously have the right to do anything I like, hence >I have the right to do the following: > 1)>incite people to write unsolicited letters to you and your superiors< Certainly you have the right to do whatever you want but if you were following you would know that I was not speaking of LEGAL rights but rather of ethical rights. > 2) Make comments which might.. > >be considered libelous and damaging to a person's career...< Again if you were following, Chuqi was complaining about libel, and I only made a point about his own behavior. >So which is it? Can I do what I like, or are there restrictions ? >By Kyle's own arguments, it is clear there should be restrictions, the most >obvious of which are those imposed by the laws of the land. Yes and I have never said anything to contradict that legal restrictions do apply. However I was speaking of restrictions based on person taste. >Kyle's arguments hold about as much water as a seive. The way he is leaning >is to assert that the Usenet sites MUST pay whatever costs are necessary to >ensure that all articles in all groups go everywhere. NO NO NO!!!! Any site can obviously do whatever it wants and I have no desire to tell that site how to conduct its buisness. I object to statements like "Remove net.xxxxxx because a user didn't like a posting". If a site needs to terminate newsgroups then be all means kill "net.flame ...", but don't tell me I should kill it because YOU don't like whats posted in the group. >Oh, and by the way, calling someone you don't know a "slut" in a public forum >is actionable in a civil court of law. Is that good enough, or did you "n" >past all those articles ?? Its not as actionable as you think, you have to show that the statement was libelous and/or defaming. If you did not suffer any damages from the statement, your going to have fun proving libel. Try suing the National Enquirer. At any rate I'm sick of the whole stupid discussion. If you want to kill a newsgroup for what appear to be arbitrary reasons don't expect me to like it and since this is a public forum I'm going to complain about it, if I deem it necessary. Kyle Henriksen OLDARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@UCLA-LOCUS.arpa NEWARPA: ucla-cime!kyle@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU UUCP: {ucla-cs,cepu}!ucla-cime!kyle