From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 21:53:52 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd)
Message-ID: <199608021118.GAA09469@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi All,

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:35:00 -0700
> From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
> Subject: Re: Tolerance
> 
> Hell no. Do I believe he has a right to join the list? Yes, with one
> possible exception. The list owner can ban anybody, since the list is using
> the owner's resources. In this case, from a libertarian standpoint, not
> even an explanation of such an action would be required.

If the person joining the public list is warned that the list owner reserves
that right I would agree. It would require such a warning to be issued at
the time the person received their notification of successful joining. If
that warning is not present and the list is advertised as PUBLIC then NO,
not even the list operator can ethicaly refuse membership to anyone for
any reason other than criminal activity by a member. Otherwise it isn't
public.

Just because you provide a service does not give you unlimited or even
limited control if you make it clear it is public and therefore open to
anyone.

Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or
property without their prior consent then it should be legal and
permissible. A public list means that the owner does not reserve any rights
of moderation or cencorship. This is the way public is applied to the
government and it is the way it MUST be applied to private individuals.
This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In
short the ethical situation is the same as if a city declares a park to be
public and then begins to bar people from sleeping there at night.


                                                  Jim Choate