🚀 go-pugleaf

firebug@iag.net (firebug) wrote:
>By following up to Grubor I have now broken my only New Years resolution.
>Well, it lasted a week - New Record!
>
>In article <4cluc7$bh5@cloner2.ix.netcom.com>,
>M.Grubor  <zando@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <4ckhf2$4tg@news-e1a.megaweb.com> CL3946@gnn.com (Cynthia Price)
>>writes: 
>>>                If the content of a certain group bother's a person
>>>that person shouldn't read it. It's really as simple as that. After 
>>>
>>It is not the *content* that is at issue here, girl.
>>
>>It is the *censorship* of the Freedom Of Speech within the
>>rec.drugs.* groups that is so disturbing. 
>>
>>The promoters (gnosis, hardrock and firebug)of these
>>rec.drugs.* groups have clearly stated that they will censor any free
>>speech which questions the *legitimacy* status of the recreational use
>>of hard drugs.  In essence, they are supressing the Freedom Of Speech
>>against the recreational use Of hard Drugs.  This can not be allowed.
>
>The rec.drugs.* opposers think that it is censorship to separate discussion
>into appropriate groups. talk.politics.drugs is the place for debate on drug
>use, rec.drugs is not, just as rec.hunting is not for debate on hunting,
>rec.guns is not for debate on gun control, and rec.gambling is not for
>debate on the morality of gambling.

The debate on the morality of the legitimacy of any recreational hard
drugs is always appropriate in any drug group. Drugs are not like guns
or gambling, which are both legal and moral.  Hard drugs kill people
every day, including innocent victims.  Open and shut case.
>
>If we're going to say that it's censorship to separate rec.drugs from
>talk.politics.drugs, then it's also censorship to separate ANY two topics.
>In that case, having separate newsgroups has no purpose and all of the many
>thousands of groups should be combined.
>
>I fail to see, also, how we're going to *censor* the speech in rec.drugs.
>We're just explaining what is appopriate and what is inappropriate.

When you say that it is inappropriate to challenge the legitimacy
of recreational crack or cocaine usage, than that is going too far.

This must be stopped at once.

Maybe if we eliminate these recreational drugs groups and
turn them into the talk.drugs.* groups that *should be* THEN,
just MAYBE we can begin to get some credibility for UseNet.

I mean just *maybe* we can earn some credibity for ourselves
as *competent-intelligent-self-regulating-netizens* and maybe
Congress can look at this and see that we do *not* need the
Exon Bill to regulate UseNet! The propositon that recreational
drug usage can go unchallenged as being legitimate is pure
censorship in an indecent form, and it must be remedied at once.

We are all intelligent netizens, and we must understand that
the outside world has a much less educated perspective of this
than we do, and we must show that we can regulate ourselves if
we ever expect them (Congress) to stay off of our backs.

John M. Grubor
Doctor Of Law
CyberLawMaster