Re: [ga] NC members, censorship and other absurd things

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 01:54:39PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> The solution is technological and well-known on the Internet: provide
> three lists.  
> 
> One is filtered according to PUBLISHED rules (there are no such rules of
> which I'm aware at present for this list).
> 
> A second list is unfiltered.  
> 
> A third list is for (horribly dull) discussions of whether the filtering
> the first list complies with the published rules (in order to keep this
> dull stuff off the filtered list).

The third list doesn't add anything.  Send the discussion to the
unfiltered list. 

> People subscribe to whatever they want.  After that, there are two
> possible models:
> 
> A) Posting is not allowed directly to list two.  All posts published on
> list one are also sent to list two. Furthermore, all posts deemed
> unsuitable for list one are sent to list two.  The advantage is that both
> lists move at the same speed.  The disadvantage is that secret censorship
> is slightly more possible since no posts appear on either list one or two
> until the moderator sees them.

This is a meaningless distinction.  The list operator can *always* see 
email messages before they are distributed, and censor them.

> Conceivably there may be liability issues
> in this model outside the US.

Lost me there, counselor..."conceivably" is a very broad 
term...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain