🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun1.022548.28381@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
>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
                   ^^^^
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my analogy.  I never claimed a "city" bus.

>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 think you missed my point.  I'm not talking about whether or not to
let someone "on the bus", but about how the owner/operator can treat
someone who has already been allowed on board.

If my church (or me or any person/entity) owned a bus and agreed to
let a person on board (say a church member), I don't believe that
church has the right to violate that person's civil rights (wrt, sex,
race, religion, creed, etc...) regardless of the reason why the person
was allowed on board ("public accommodation" or not).

The claim was made that "improper" behavior, as determined by the
owner/operator, was enough for the owner/operator to take action
("kick those people off").  If the owner/operator decides that the
person's race is "improper", does s/he have the right to take that
action because of it?

I think not.

Now, if someone violated an agreed-upon (by user and owner/operator)
non-discriminatory rule/regulation I think an owner/operator probably
does have the right to take action.

I certainly don't have the answer to the dilemma (well, I kinda see it
as a dilemma; your mileage may vary) of how "improper speech" is to be
treated on these systems.  I'd probably take action if I owned a
system and I saw something that I felt was grossly "improper", but I
know I'd be very careful and hesitant about doing it.

Stephen
-- 
Stephen L Nicoud  <snicoud@boeing.com>  uw-beaver!bcsaic!snicoud
Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science
Bellevue, Washington  USA