🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <48330@bcsaic.UUCP> snicoud@Boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud) writes:
In article <1991May29.222406.26060@herald.usask.ca> lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) writes:

>> If anyone has a RIGHT here, it is the right of
>> the owner of a computer to control how his
>> computer is used. Its exactly the same as the bus
>> driver who has the right to kick anyone off the
>> bus if they are causing a problem. claiming that
>> the USERS have rights to get electronic mail, no
>> matter how badly they act, is similar to saying
>> that bus riders have the right to steal the bus,
>> and use it to rob a bank. If someone is trying to
>> use MY equipment in a way *I* consider is
>> improper, then *I* have every right to kick those
>> people off *MY* computer.

> And how about the bus driver/owner who makes black
> people sit in the back of the bus. Clearly it is
> not *always* up to the owner's notion of what is
> "improper". You cannot restrict the activities
> based upon sex, race, religion, creed, etc...

Flawed analogy; a city bus is a public accomodation
within the scope of the law, either operated or
licensed to operate by government entities to whom
the anti-discrimination statutes apply. These same
statutes don't tell me that if I operate a church
school bus I have to provide service to other than
the, perhaps tuition paying, students.

I have a complete right to operate a private BBS for
the benefit and use, only, of the KKK, the John
Birch Society, the Bnai Brith Anti-Defamation
League, the Freemasons, alt.activism participants
(gag!) or people whose last name starts with "D"
like mine. That is _not_ a public accomodation, it
is not operated or licensed as one by a government
entity. and the anti-discrimination laws should not
be expected to apply.

No more am I required (nor is USENet required) to
_fund_ your _access_ to free speech on the BBS or the
net, that corresponds to your right to be safe from
_laws_ _abridging_ free speech in a medium either
free or voluntarily funded by other participants and
provided for you.

Since USENet does not have, and probably does not
want, the status of a common carrier, it is at least
unclear that sites like The Well, Portal, Netcom,
UUNET, UUPSI, etc. are under any obligation to
provide equal access to service either, though
frankly, it is a bit tough to discriminate before
the fact against a person you are unlikely ever to
see or know much about beyond the printed word, and
loss of an account once granted would quite probably
be based on unprotected behavior (non-payment of
subscription fees, posting of unlawful material,
being a complete pain in the ass and disrupting
operations for other users, etc.), not on personal
characteristics subject to anti-discrimination law
coverage, in any case.

This means if "we" don't like you enough to toss you
off the net and pull the plug on your feed, you have
no _legal_ recourse; your only recourse is to
correct the behavior problems that elicited such a
severe response enough to gull some sucker into
providing you a feed again, at probable risk to his
own feed, since the net is rather long on memory and
short on forgiveness.

Similarly for a cancelled account; you have to find
a new site that will give you one, you have no
inherent right, and should have no expectation, to
get the old one back by means of any legal process.

Compare it to the case of newspapers, which are in
no way obliged to publish your obscene and abusive
letter to the editor (though if you shop around, one
may), although the law is pretty strict in allowing
you to fund your _own_ newspaper in which you can
rave, within the limits of the libel laws, to your
heart's content.

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>