🚀 go-pugleaf

(--Newsgroups trimmed--)

ad607@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Darrell A. Larose) writes:
> Marc Dufour <emdx@accent.net> wrote:
>>IGS should have waited for a court order to remove the page.
>
> IGS does have the right to remove anything it deems offensive from it's
> server. In the user agreement the user signs states that. The author of
> that page signed that agreement, he therefore agreed to those terms. IGS,
> Compuserve, and even the NCF all have AUP which clearly cites this. As
> the author doesn't own IGS or the server where the page resided then he 
> has to abide to his contract.

If this is indeed the case, why did IGS feel it necessary to
rationalize their decision by shifting responsibility to the
authorities, reviving the ogre of government censorship and
the attendant furor?

IMHO, it is proceding in this manner that they "made a mess of
it", not by removing the controversial page from their system.
By their apparent reluctance to promote and apply a fair AUP,
ISPs seem to be inviting the very intervention that is such an
anathema to them (and EFC).