🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DuoAwo.CrB@ferret.ocunix.on.ca>, clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca says...
>

>>>I don't think this is a 'mockery of the truth'. iStar are simply taking
>>>the steps necessary to reduce their legal liability to an acceptable
>>>business level. I am not sure what you mean about political correctness.
>>>As near as I can make out, the Criminal Code provisions preceded that form
>>>of censorship.
>
>>       If Istar wished to reduce their legal liablity, then they should reduce 
>>their exposure.
>
>Surprise, that's what they thought they did.

	As I'm suggesting in countless posts, they didn't want to really reduce 
their exposure to legal ramifications, just reduce their exposure to political/moral 
considerations. They made a political/moral statement by eliminating those 
particular groups. They reduced their legal position by not a whit.

>>Simply getting rid of 35 groups is STUPID. It smacks of Political 
>>correctness/moral turpitude.
>
>The terms are contradictory.  If they were Politically Correct, they couldn't
>also be morally turpitudey, now could they?

	The terms can be, but are not, in this case contradictory. I used them in 
the sense of trying to describe their motivation. The "/" (slash) was used in the 
context of an "either/or" situation. 

>>What they have done is odiously rid themselves of 
>>groups that are NON-PC and/or overtly/covertly sexist.
>
>If that's what they did, they would have removed _thousands_ of groups -
>all of alt.sex.*, alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.* and dozens of other
>groups would have disappeared.

	That's exactly what they should have done if they wanted to accomplish what 
they stated. I think that they should drop their Usenet feed completely if they wish 
to avoid any "legal" problems. 

>What they have done is remove groups that seem to be of highest legal
>risk.  Of the ones they've removed, except for perhaps 2, I happen to
>agree with their risk assessment (presuming that they have the usual
>spotty coverage of alt, and are missing a couple of other ones).

	That's not what they stated. They appear to have absolved themselves of 
legal responsibility by dropping 35 groups. I disagree and most vociferously.

>>I would like to maintain 
>>my right to say what I want to say and to publish what I want to be published, 
>>whether it be through print or electronic media. 
>
>You still have that right.  You just don't have the right to force iStar
>to take the legal risk for you.


	I still have that right, yes. I also have the right to point out the 
hypocritical nonsensical nature of certain decisions.

>
>Take it up with the Government of Canada and section 163.1 of the
>Criminal Code of Canada, not iStar.

	Don't quote legal sections at me. Do I have to reiterate every time that if 
iStar wants to avoid legal problems they simply have to shut down their Usenet feed?
	I could bore you and everyone else to death by quoting relevant sections of 
the legal statutes. Do you or anyone else want me to quote chapter and verse of 
various legal codes and how iStar is breaking the law by carrying material RIGHT  
NOW? If you want, I can let their legal department know that at least half of what 
they carry could be consided illegal. If they really care about legalities, then I 
can shut down about 10,000 groups. It would take me about 3 months of research (at 
least), but it can be done.
>
>>       To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).
>
>I know what it means - a non-sequitor in this context.

	Do you own a dictionary? I did say look it up! It's not out of context.

	From Webster's New World Dictionary (1996)

	iconoclast (I'll leave out the phonetics and origins). 1. one opposed to the 
 religious use of images or advocating the destruction of such images. 2. one who 
attacks and seeks to destroy widely accepted ideas, beliefs, etc.