🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1 Jul 1997 21:11:39 GMT, aldham@wimsey.com (Danny Aldham) wrote:

>Bruce Allen (osiris@!sympatico.ca) wrote:
>: 	If an intelligent, well-reasoned, statement providing the case against
>: royalty, posted in a reasonable number of groups simultaneously, were to be
>: removed soley for its content, then that would be censorship.
>: 	When "FUCK THE QUEEN" gets dropped, it is indeed a cleanup. 
>: 	Nothing more.
>
>So when a message is cancelled because you don't like the title,
>that is OK? 

If "you" is either a moderated newsgroup or a local hierarchy with
it's own rules, sure.

>You seem to have no grasp of the entire concept of free
>speach. 

I don't know what "free speach" is, is it anything like a free peach?
I got one at the produce store the other day.

>It is precisely the distasteful & obnoxious that must be 
>allowed. Is it OK for the Communist Chinese to censore Democracy
>posts since they find them too in bad taste? 

Communist Chinese Government does not equal the owners of a computer
network.

>And who decides? You?

The people who own the networks.

>I think Gary Mills is censoring posts that he has no right censoring.

Unless Gary Mills is a government agent, he cannot "censor" by
definition. 

[followups set to news.admin.net-abuse.policy]

-Phil Oliver

-----
"I'm mean if you going to be hypocrite like the rest of us 
just admit you posturing potser." - Ruwan Jayatilleke, in
<Pine.SOL.3.91.970616102715.20499F-100000@hejira.hunter.cuny.edu>