🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 Jul 1997 15:08:15 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth Breidbart) wrote:

>In article <33b9bf1c.713192007@news.portal.ca>,
>Karl Pollak <kpollak@nospam.com> wrote:
>>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? 
>>No Danny.  When the title contravenes the Criminal Code of Canada and
>>refers to the Head of State in obscene language, then it is perfactly
>>in order to cancel such a message.
>
>It is perfectly in order to cancel the messge _from your site_.  The
>message does not contravene any relevant critical code here, and
>referring to our Head of State in obscene language is a national
>passtime.  If you continue to cancel other people's articles globally
>because they are illegal where you are, then you are going to find
>that the rest of Usenet does not want to speak to you.

Aren't the cancels being done in local hierarchies that have separate
rules?  

>Of course, you'd have no objection to the cancellation of any article
>that might be illegal in, say, Iran, would you?

In the iran.* hierarchy, I wouldn't.

-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>