🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 18 Jul 1996 23:33:02 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
Goldmacher) wrote:
>
>>I have a question that maybe a lawyer could answer.  It seems to me
>>that many newsgroups carry messages that are libelous, and fraudulent,
>>and perhaps there is no group that has not been spammed with illegal
>>scam adverts.
>
>>If the basis is only to stop groups with illegal material then why are
>>these groups not also banned if 'illegality' is the only criteria ? 
>
>I think a good case could be made for charging a isp with willfully
>promoting hatred where they carry a newsgroup called
>"niggers.jews.kill.them.all" if the group carried offensive postings.
>

Obviously, but this does not address the question in the slightest, in
fact it appears a deliberate attempt to kill discussion by resorting
to extreme cases.

You are using the same tactic as the religious right did in the US to
push the CDA, You immediately talk of the worst sort of trash, as if
that was all that was to be banned, and by interference anyone who
questions the actions must immediately somehow be in support of racial
hatred and kiddy porn. Do you know exactly what they have *in fact*
banned ?  Why not discuss issues raised, instead of try to divert
discussion by hyperbole ?

>>While this is only speculation it would seem that the intent must run
>>deeper than simply law enforcement, perhaps they want a legal
>>precedent, for when they extend their control further ?
>>***********************************************************
>
>There are no legal limits on their control right now.  They can decide
>to discontinue whatever services they feel like discontinuing.  
>

Are you *sure* that their contractual agreement with their customers
does not include a provision that is broken by intentionally reducing
the number of newsgroups ?
***********************************************************

homepage at <http://www.icons.net/~horton/BayView.html>

***********************************************************