🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3o5ij9$34v@news.sas.ab.ca>,  <ljp@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>He was a person who felt it neccessary to provide all of the relevant 
>history.  In his case the complaints concerned requests for funds and 
>advertising.  Having read the material, I would consider the abuse minor 
>and consistent with other posters.

Yes, it's probably minor.  What's not so minor is that he clearly didn't
read anything regarding netiquette before posting.  It's kind of like
the idea that speeding is often pretty minor, but law enforcement
officials will still ticket you for it anyway.  (But unlike law enforcement,
it's a lot easier to change your Internet service provider than it is to
find a new set of laws you can live under. :-) )

If it's consistent with other posters, that's unfortunate.

>I doubt if the sysops looked at the content.

I suspect you're incorrect.

>The point isn't that he lost access, the point is there was no appeal or 
>independent referee.

Why should there be?  We're not talking about a court of law here; we're
talking about Internet service providers.  They have the right to provide
or deny access to whoever the heck they want to (assuming it doesn't
interfere with the standard non-discriminatory laws now on the books).

>As Internet becomes an important social service and communications 
>medium, there is a need for protection from arbitrary action.

Sign up with an Internet service provider whose policies you agree with
and are willing to abide by.  Simple, eh?

I obviously don't know the details of the Internet service provider the
above mentioned person was using, but all of the ones I've used in the
past 2 years have had you sign very specific agreements regarding what
you should and should not be doing on the net.  (And although I think
such policies are extremely good ideas, they're certainly not required,
either!)

					---Joel Kolstad