From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 08:26:53 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Mailing list liability (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199611100513.XAA01797@einstein>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961110111103.404A-100000@gak.voicenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 9 Nov 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> It is exactly editorial control because it prevents, a priori, submissions by
> Vulis under that account. He is FORCED to resort to other means. That is
> what the courts will see, it is what the jury will see, and it is what will
> eventualy sink the list, and place its operator under financial burden for
> years.

You really need to get your facts straight.  Vulis is _not_ prevented from
posting under his name to cpunks.  He has in fact made several posts since
he was removed from the list.  My question still stands.  Why is this editorial
control?  None of the cases you cited were anything like this situation.

> In case you people don't get it, the whole point is to REDUCE the influence
> and control of the government (local, state, and federal). NOT to give even
> more fodder to shoot. For a list operator a primary if not the primary
> goal is to avoid any legal involvement at all costs. Throwing people off
> lists with no subscription limitations is not the way to do that. To be a
> succesful list operator your scruples and the way you treat your subscribers
> MUST be beyond any reproach. The bottem line is that the act was not
> professional and impacts the image of mailing lists, Cypherpunks, its operator,
> and its members in a negative light. I have operated BBS'es and mailing
> lists since '76 and find such actions on the part of a fellow service
> operator to be insulting to the profession that I have enjoyed for 20 years.

Call it what ever you want, it's still government regulation to tell someone
how to run a mailing list.  The first amendment says nothing about any of this
"common carrier" nonsense.  This is just the Supreme Court's interpretation.
If you are so concerned about being "censored", why don't you just ask the list
owner to clearly state his position about subscriptions and submissions
before subscribing?  It's not right to expect someone providing a service free
of charge to accept the burden of making sure his position on subscription and
submissions are stated clearly just because you're too lazy to find out
yourself.

Mark
- -- 
finger -l for PGP key
PGP encrypted mail prefered.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMoYCzSzIPc7jvyFpAQFm4Af/dyisLfA1wOZmhhjhdjx6Mey8S8Z1v2GZ
IGf05tQTulp3jqp4b7nN7i7ErHsA19iez/7DxAkMsDkhre7cGURv4+/msZHyf4hU
FQ9qGsEMGbCUbM5SKM1EjzQOhyHCIUkaETu7aFaWZcDYaHAeNGYU4ZxDxRjBOG/V
wCnKxkKpn37uOUbKbRsY95dSYSlJQf0lJFFYr1xNttiE6gDZq+5gOg2gx1QlhFhj
+FoDj73Rwv6A/AiEX33rrwGw8z5tSEuljTyQb0UbPMyIDQ6XdYk3ostppTzp9zLl
Tlh/5RsZaAK7iLuG5dVyohDJJqudOzljtl3+iU7Vnfd9OkrtV8uEug==
=X/0v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
clear