🚀 go-pugleaf

Krishna E. Bera wrote:

> Landlords are not guilty by association when one of their tenants
> commits a crime.  Phone companies are not guilty by association when
> one of their customers utters threats over the phone.  In both cases
> the argument is between the alleged perpetrator, the alleged victims
> and the police.

The qualifier is they are unaware of whether or not a crime
is taking place. Once they become aware, and don't take
reasonable action, they are culpable. For example, the
post office cannot be held responsible for delivering
a pipe bomb to you. However, if they had reasonable
suspicion that they were delivering a pipe bomb then...

But, yes, I agree IGS may have overreacted, unless 
their AUP stated they reserve right to deny service
for publishing material they found "objectionable"
or "offensive". It's a private system. It's for them
to determine what they find objectionable. As a consumer,
just know that IGS doesn't cotton to extremist politics.


-- 
"Yes, take your cue from Mr Mamer, the professional antagonist."
                    -- John Lauzon <bk469@freenet.toronto.on.ca>