🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4shftu$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <radfordr-1607962133300001@ts33-13.tor.istar.ca>, 

>>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.

>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?

>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.

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).

>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.

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

>	To do less is iconoclastic (look it up in your fuckin' dictionary).

I know what it means - a non-sequitor in this context.
-- 
Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_