Re: Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Michael Froomkin wrote:

>This is really a bit vague for my taste when announcing what, in the 
wrong
>hands, could turn into a manual, standardless, censorship policy which
>appears to have no provisions for outside review.
>

Indeed.

That's why your input, as a lawyer, is most valuable.
In fact, instead of answering the list of questions you ask, to most of 
which I don't have a firm opinion/answer yet, I would like to seek your 
advice and input.

>One could reasonably hope to be told, as an initial matter,
>
>1) ... <list snipped>
>
>


I have a feeling: there is rough consensus that there should be some 
kind of rules, and there is more-than-rough consensus that these rules 
should be clear, well-defined, non-exclusionary (in the sense that the 
same rule should apply to everybody in the same way), and so on.


>
>While I have no reason to believe that the parties involved in this
>filtering -- whoever they are [we are not told!] -- are anything but
>well-intentioned, and am certain that Harald is not interested in being
 a
>party to any viewpoint-based censorship, it would be trivial for the
>initiators' successors to abuse this sort of discretion.  Lawyers are
>trained to write rules that are able to withstand Justice Holmes'
>proverbial "bad man", and (in the US) never more so when free speech is

>invovled, so this makes me nervous.
>


This is true for every human activity.
We need fair rules, knowing that there will be people trying to 
circumvent them (both in avoiding the rule and in enforcing it in the 
wrong way).
The existence of this (real) problem should not lead us to the 
conclusion that no rules should be enforced, only make us more careful 
in drafting the rules.


>In fact, on re-reading this note, its not even clear to me if the list 
has
>suddenly been moved to an all-moderated status or if some sort of 
clever
>procmail-style diversion that only affects some messages has been used.

>Will my posts go straight through, or be reviewed first?
>
>More information, please.  If this pushes my button this much - and it
>does! - imagine how some others are going to react....
>


Yes, please. More information, in the form of more input from the 
participants (in particular from those that have been silecnt so far).

Regards
Roberto