🚀 go-pugleaf

alchemy@interlog.com (Morton Goldmacher) writes:
]iSTAR's counsel is there to protect iSTAR's legal interest.  It is not
]there to censor, moralize, dictate public policy or please you.  Any
]lawyer who failed to draw his client's attention to the substantial
]possibility of criminal consequences to a business operation is negligent
]or worse.  If you find the action of removing the newgroups upsetting,
]your beef is with the parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada, not with
]iSTAR's counsel.

IANAL, but if an ISP maintained that it was providing a service and that it
was up to the users of that service to self-censor how they used it,
wouldn't a move toward censorship make them *more* liable for legal action
if someone decided to sue anyway?  

]If you should require legal assistance you will find, despite your dislike
]of the profession, that your interests will be best protected by following
]the advice of counsel.

Sometimes there is a difference between doing what is legally prudent and
doing what is right.  There's a lot of hate and filth on the net, as there
is everywhere else, but messing with its fundamental openness will take
away what makes it special.  The real issue here is freedom of speech.

Finally, anyone who thinks it is even possible to effectively censor the
internet is hopelessly ill-informed and naive.  This includes the
government, the corporate world, and their lawyers.  Not that that will
stop anyone from trying, of course. . .

-- 
      Kevin MacNeil            \      Memorial University of Newfoundland
kmacneil@morgan.ucs.mun.ca      /            English & Philosophy