[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Comments from Pawlo
Kent and all,
The proof that censorship is a bad idea and illegal is well known and
VERY well documented in history in various places. I would think
that you are able to do your own research. The supreme court
records, some of which are online are available on various sites
on the internet. Review them.
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:06:00AM +0100, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
> > I suggest there be only one (1) sanction, that is suspension. If the
> > sanction is needed suspension is a fair punishment, monitoring
> > (censorship) does not make sense.
> Proof by assertion? Why does it not make sense? It makes good sense
> to me.
> > >Note that due to technical issues, monitoring one member's postings may
> > >cause monitoring to be applied to other members' posts.
> > Obviously this is not acceptable - this just another reason to strike the
> > sanction as such.
> There is a weakness in the wording. I believe the intent is that the
> offenders postings will be *moderated*; but that moderation may require
> that other's mail be monitored.
> That is, the offenders mail may be censored, but the other monitored
> email will simply be viewed, because it may be difficult monitor only
> one user from a technical standpoint.
> *Monitoring* mail, of course, is completely acceptable -- it's a public
> list, after all, and there can be no objection to somebody reading it.
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208