From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 1996 12:33:43 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT] (fwd)
Message-ID: <199611092037.OAA01232@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> From: "networks@vir.com" <networks@vir.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 15:15:38 -0500
> 
> It seems that, like a bookstore, the cypherpunks mailing list has the
> right to choose the content it distributes and who it distributes the content
> to.

Actualy bookstores distribute the books they are under contract to distribute
via the publishers they have contracts with. An easy way to tell if a
bookstore is a reasonable distributor and one with some level of ethics is
to ask if they participate in the yearly banned books week. If they don't I
would suggest you go elsewhere.

Businesses in general are not allowed to prohibit patrons based on their
belief, speech, or action unless it can be shown to pose some threat to the
operation of the business or they post said policy in a public place where
patrons can see it. 

An example may be in order. Here in Austin, TX. we have a problem with bums
and kids who are homeless. They urinate on the walls and commit various
other acts that are not acceptable to the community at large. In order to do
anything about these people on public property the city HAD to pass two
laws. These two laws are that it is now unlawful to camp overnite on public
property. In effect you cannot reside on public property in Austin, TX
between midnite and 6am. The other law was that it is now a crime in Austin,
TX to emit a 'objectionable odor in public'. Strictly interpreted if you are
in a city park at 12:01AM or before 6:00AM you can be arrested. Also, if
you were to emit a fart outside your personal property you can be arrested.
(Note that these laws have not resolved the indigent problems we have here)

In short without this law (ie contract) it was not possible for the city or
private businesses to do anything about this.

>  Bookstores are free to select what titles they offer for sale, and can
> even refuse to sell a book to a particularly annoying customer if they
> so choose (my legal knowledge is lacking, but I think this is correct).

Irrelevant. The point is that bookstores are not legaly responsible for the
contents of those books except in very special cases. The distributors or
publishers are responsible. This list qualifies as a publisher so long as
it retains editorial control of content of submissions prior to distribution.
If they have no editorial control then they are in the situation of a
bookstore which is protected from legal action on the contents of the books
they carry except under special conditions. The action taken by the list
operator explicity acts as an example of that editorial control.

> To extend the analogy, what has happened in this particular case 
> is that Dr. Vulis is now forced to buy all his books by mail order :)

What has happened here is that a member of a community has been expunged
based on their beliefs. Not on any particular action they took which posed
any sort of threat to that community.

                                                   Jim Choate