🚀 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...

This was one of my early disagreements with the violation of rights 
movement.  If it were a government subsidized bus, then fine, prohibit them 
from discriminating.  If a person uses his own earnings to pay for 
something, it should be his - to have and hold - i.e. to control without 
interference from others (until and unless it is used to attack someone 
else).