🚀 go-pugleaf

horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jul 1996 15:55:30 GMT, alchemy@interlog.com (Morton
>Goldmacher) wrote:

>>There is certainly political and public relations points to be gained,
>>but unless we are told by iSTAR's managers why they deleted the groups
>>we can only speculate on their motives.

>Is not silence often  the refuge of scoundrels and liars, so why
>should silence not allow us to asusme the worst ?

You may assume whatever you wish to.  But you are still in the realm
of speculation.  I admit that I can't really tell what iSTAR's motives
were.  To me their motives matter less than the legal consequences of
their actions.

>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.

>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.  


Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor