🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <qumivlt3j11.fsf@cyclone.Stanford.EDU>, Russ Allbery
<rra@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

[Much Deleted]

>It's this "I'm a taxpayer, so I
> *OWN* EVERYTHING you've EVER TOUCHED!" crusade that gets on my nerves.

Do you realize that most state univeristy systems are subject to that
state's open meetings laws?  In the states I am familiar with, the average
taxpayer can attend any lecture s/he chose on a random basis.  Most just
do not choose to use this right (and it is a right under most open meeting
laws).  Multiple attendance is regulated because of the question of
tuition.

Likewise, most technical equipment on the campuses of state universities
is likely required to be accessible to qualified users by similar
legislation and with appropriate arrangements to prevent chaos.  Thus, a
gateway operated by a state institution likely must be made accessible to
all state citizens with equipment/knowledge of using that gateway.  The
commercial provider is not relevant becuase the provider is not being
punished by the actions.  The actionds of the administrator is more
analogous to denying campus to citizens of city 1 because of other
citizens of city 1 were unruly.  It simply can't be done this way at a
state university.  

Now, much of this is likely applicable to citizens of Texas in this case,
but the general principles remain.  Denying access to a specific user
based on previous acts by other people is essentially prior restraint and
out of place for a government representative.

B. Martin