🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DCDxt0.M4@actrix.gen.nz>, ahaz@atlantis.actrix.gen.nz
(Stephen  Bell) wrote:

[Mr. Bell proposes that his opponents are advocating the following quote:]
> "Usenet can be accessed from my home PC; therefore it is part of my 
> personal space, and should not be invaded by things that displease me."
> 
> IMO, there is a world of difference between:
> 1) A discretionary medium; I can only be offended by what's in a newspaper 
> or magazine if I choose to buy it and read it.
> 
> 2) A broadcast medium: Radio and TV do come to my house as it were 
> "univited," and I at least have to take positive action (turning the OFF 
> switch) if I become aware that something will be broadcast that offends me.
> 
> 3) A personally directed communication like mail or email.
> 
> Usenet news, IMO, belongs in 1. If you see a message header from Bob 
> Allisat, there is nothing that compels you to read the message, or 
> characterises it as a communication to you personally.

Unfortunately, Stephen, you are jumping off the track right at the outset.
The reason that news is broken up into categories is that moving news around
COSTS MONEY.  If my site wants to get news of general interest to the area,
or wants to get poetry, we have the choice at the outset to commit to spend
the money to get those articles onto our server.  We do NOT have the ability
(short of the investment of writing a whole new, supervised way to exchanging
news, and the investment of time to do the supervision) to discard off-topic
articles except by the generally-agreed-upon convention that people should
place their postings in newsgroup(s) suited to the topic.

> This is at most an inconvenience on a par with turning the OFF switch. 
> Unlike drawing your curtains to avoid flashers on the sidewalk, it does 
> not personally inconvenience you to any noticeable extent to have to do 
> this.

The strawman position that you accuse your opponents of having (at the start
of this post) is not what we advocate at all.  We say "Usenet can be accessed
from most everyone's PC; therefore, it is a shared space, and everyone in it,
including me, has the responsibility to abide by the rules, and the right to
suggest changes in the rules when appropriate."  Please note that most of us
on this group condemn the actions taken by some people against Mr. Allisat
which violate the rules as much as we condemn Mr. Allisat's violations.
(It is interesting to point out, however, that Mr. Allisat disregards the
rules for himself, and then claims their protection when HIS "personal space"
is violated.  Is some consistency too much to ask here?)

Much as the sidewalk above you mention is a shared space, and no, I should NOT
have to draw my drapes to avoid seeing someone breaking the rules of a shared
space, I should not have to put Mr. Allisat into a killfile simply because he
will not acknowledge that he has responsibilities as well as rights, and all
of us who are offended by Mr. Allisat's disregard of the rules have the right
and responsibility to demand of his service provider that he be made to comply
or that he be excluded from access.  It's as much my bat, ball and baseball
park as it is yours or Mr. Allisat's, and _I_ (and many others) say that what
he is doing, and what you are advocating, is wrong.

> Start arguing that Bob's poetry is directed at you, and the logically
> following consequence is that any discussion of a topic more suited
> to adults on Usenet should be regarded as personally "made available"
> (in terms of the Exon Bill) to any randomly-selected child.

If the description of a newsgroup is such that the topics to be expected on
it would not be such "adult" (more likely "adolescent", but that's another
discussion), then obviously letting children on it is like unlocking the
Playboy Channel for them.

On the other hand, such steamy material should not be expected on CNBC,
A&E, or the USA Network, in the same way that they would not be expected
on *.general.  If you place that kind of information in a newsgroup that,
by its charter and description, is likely to be read by persons NOT OF YOUR
INTENDED AUDIENCE, then you have inappropriately posted your information.

When Bob posts poetry, he is directing it at an audience, and he is doing
so outside any guidelines that could be arrived at by rational thought.

> Now maybe you want this, but by imposing it on me you are, in my opinion, 
> trespassing far more on my freedom than a random bit of not particularly 
> good poetry.

I do not trespass on your freedom when I advocate filing books in a library
either by subject, title or author; that is, in an ordered, predictable
manner.  Nor do I trespass on your freedom when I as a grocer place the
canned goods in one place, the produce in another, and the frozen foods
in yet another CLEARLY MARKED AND LOGICALLY DELINIATED PLACE.  In the same
manner, the Usenet trespasses not at all on your freedom when commonly-
accepted standards dictate what content should normally be placed where.
======================================================================
Mark Hartman Computer Solutions - specializing in all things Macintosh
   C  C++   4th Dimension   Networking   System design/architecture
tel +1(714)758.0640 -+- fax +1(714)999.5030 -+- e-mail mh@primenet.com
     "But it's not a fair test!  People LIKE to use the Macintosh!"
======================================================================
"If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful." --C. S. Lewis