🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2 Jul 1998 15:13:12 GMT, dragnet@internalysis.com (Marc
Bissonnette) wrote:

>>Other ISPs are not publicly funded, are not volunteer supported, do
>>not posses the status of a charity, their responsibility is to their
>>stake holders, *OUR* responsibility is to the greater good of our
>>community, and unless we serve as a vanguard of free speech and
>>justice, we are *NOT* working in the best interest of our community.
>>
>So, to continue Jim's example, having this doctor shot and killed is to the 
>greater good of our community?

Marc, please, the answer is obvious, having a doctor killed is not in
the greater good of the community, which is why we have law enforcers
and a justice system

You and Jim are just making sensationalized examples to try and
justify vigilantism.

If you think that our community needs more/better/different law
enforcement methods to protect "doctors from being killed on usenet"
then you should be working within the law enforcement establishment,
not "taking the law into your own hands" and attempting to remedy your
perceived security needs by implementing some haphazard system of wild
west justice via the board of a community service.

> Or that person in Wendy's example stalked and 
>sexually harassed/abused? This is for the benefit of the communicty?

Ditto.

Stalking and sexual harrassement/abuse is a police matter, not one for
the Free-Net Board of Directors.

>Your problem, dmytri, is tunnel vision.

And you Marc, have sunk to the level of Jim Blubberfield. Attempting
to use pithy snubs to replace thought and logic.

> Remember, your rights end *exactly* 
>where mine begin. Therefore, your right to freedom of expression ends when that 
>expression will or may cause direct bodilty harm to me (or that doctor, or that 
>person Wendy citred, etc). You may not like it but you have _zero_ choice.

Marc, as I;ve said, *WE ALREADY HAVE A JUSTICE SYSTEM* to look out for
our safety and rights, the Free-Net Board of Directors does not need
to undertake this responsibility.