🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1991Jun1.174136.6258@rock.concert.net>, by mcmahan@cs.unca.edu (Scott McMahan):

> In article <whichever>  Kevin Lowey mentions that he runs a BBS 
> on which he can do whatever he pleases.  This is not meant as
> scarasm, just necessary to make my point:  Is it equipped for
> the handicapped?

Actually, I do have files on the BBS to help ease handicapped access. 
I don't see what your point is here.  What does handicapped access have to
do with anything?

Also, you missed one important part of my message.  I said the people that
owned the systems can set any policy they want for using that system, AS
LONG AS THEY DON'T BREAK ANY LAWS.

Most of the rest of your message point out situations where laws could be
broken and I'd be in hot water.  I agree with you 100%.  However, many of the
situations you mention may not be so cut and dried legally.

For example, the KKK as an organization right now does not allow non WASP 
people to join.  There is no law saying that I have to allow purple people
into my organization.  There are still plenty of "Men only" clubs that do
not allow women to join.   I disagree with this, but its a fact of life.
If it applies to clubs, it certainly can apply to computer systems run by
those clubs.

Here's another example.  My BBS is owned and operated by the University of
Saskatchewan.  I have a policy stating that ONLY faculty, staff, students,
and alumnus of the U of S have access to it.  No other person has a "right"
to use my equipment.  I'm not forced by law to give any joe blow off the
street an account.  This is not being racist or anything, its simply a matter
of the person responsible for this system limiting access only to the people
that he purchased the system for.

I assume that a KKK bbs would similarly not be forced to provide its services
to people that are not its members.  Absolutely no law can tell the KKK to
provide its BBS services to any individual they don't want to, because it
is a PRIVATE system.

Similarly, the University of Saskatchewan is not forced to provide Usenet
access to our students.  There is no law that says that students are entitled
to accounts on our campus computers.  In fact, the only way students get
accounts on our mainframe is through class accounts.  They can't get accounts
even if they are willing to pay because we don't have the computing resources.
(That's one reason I put the BBS together, so undergrads can get limited
electronic mail, etc.)

THAT is what I mean when I say that NO ONE has a RIGHT to usenet.  Usenet as
an organization can decide who gets access to it and who doesn't.  If a node
is constantly violating Usenet guidelines, Usenet can simply kick him out.
First amendment arguments notwithstanding.  All the First Amendment says is
the guy has the right to say what he wants.  It doesn't mean he has the right
to shout it out in my back yard all night, or to violate Usenet rules 
constantly so he can have his say.

Similarly, the owner of any computer system has the right to say who can
and cannot get accounts on those computers, and which of those people can
or cannot get access to Usenet.  Just because you are a janitor at a company
with a computer connected to Usenet, that doesn't mean you have a RIGHT to
usenet.  Just because you are a secretary using a word processor on the 
computer, that doesn't mean we MUST also give Usenet access to her, even if
she asks for it.

The racism arguments here are extreme cases.  Sometimes they may be covered
by laws, which is fine.  However, if they are NOT covered by law, then there
is nothing anyone can do to stop someone from doing whatever he wants on his
equipment, no matter how outrageous it may be.  Sure, you can exert pressure
by boycotts, pulling funding, etc, but you cannot FORCE the person to change
his mind.

This whole use of bigotry as a way to "prove" that everyone has rights to 
Usenet, and people cannot control their own equipment, is fatally flawed in
one important area.  Bigotry is now controlled by law.  Of course a system
administrator or owner cannot use his system for illegal purposes (including
descrimination simply by race where that is applicable).  I never argued that.

However, that doesn't translate into prohibiting me from doing anything that
IS legal.  For example, if my policy tells my users that there is no such 
thing as private mail, and the sysop has the right to read and kill any 
message, and if accepting this policy is a condition of using this system, 
then there is nothing wrong with the system administrator killing messages 
he deems inappropriate.

If there is NOT a policy on this, and people had the impression that private
mail was private, etc., then the administrator might be in trouble.  However,
if policy is clearly set out, then there should be no problem in enforcing
that policy.

- Kevin Lowey