🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4rur64$42u@milo.vcn.bc.ca>, lalee@vcn.bc.ca (Lawrence Lee) wrote:

> Shaun Foy (sfoy@zoology.ubc.ca) wrote:
> [...]
> : As far as the ISPs go, I think that removing some of the controversial
> : newsgroups is perfectly acceptable. I don't care much for censorship
> : but, at the same time, I certainly don't expect some business to 
> : risk costly court battles to prove a point. In fact, quite the opposite,
> : I expect that they would protect themselves as best they can to avoid
> : such an outcome.
> 
> What about other "risky" newsgroups, why not just remove anything that is 
> close to being to the edge of "good taste" and controversial. It's the 
> only moral thing to do. There are several businesses and individuals and 
> organizations risking a costly court battle down in the US against the 
> CDA.. I guess they should roll over and save their money. Right?

Lawrence,

I think that my argument is pretty simple and very logical. It works
like this:

   Q. Does the ISP stand a reasonable chance that they will be involved
      in a litigation because they distribute newsgroup X.X.X.

      If the answer is YES -> drop the newsgroup
      If the answer is NO -> keep the newsgroup

My argument does not rely on making any moral decisions. I agree that
is a very contentious area and I don't care to argue on the point since
I don't think I am a model of our moralistic society. (who is?)
My argument only relies on one thing - cost. How much money will it cost
an ISP to provide the newsgroups? Well, if they end up spending tens
or hundreds of thousands of dollars and being driven out of business 
then I think that is too high a cost to pay. 

I think that you will find most business' are more intersted in making
money than fighting social/moral battles.

Regards,

Shaun.