From: niemira@rooney.fstrf.org (niemira.jim)
Newsgroups: ne.nearnet.tech
Subject: Policy question
Date: 11 Dec 1992 15:31:26 -0500
Organization: NEARnet News/Mail Gateway
Distribution: ne
Reply-To: Jim Niemira <niemira@fstrf.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: noc.near.net


I am not an expert, or even experienced with this sort of thing, but I do
speak only for myself (and not even _that_ sometimes).  I'm not even the
Sys Admin, just an Op.  But Chris's message prompted me to respond to all
this Constitutional Internet All-Encompassing God-Given Rights ThatI'mGonna-
DefendWithMyLastOunceOfBreath nonsense.


   population that Internet access is a priviledge not a right.  However 
   ...
   trying to abridge someone's constitutional rights. 

If it's a privilege, it's not a contitutional right - they can still say what-
ever they want, but if the U. doesn't want them doing it with the U.'s equip-
ment, bummer for them.  My feeling is that no arguments against that are any
good: they're right to free speech is not being abridged (they can still say
whatever they want to whoever they want), they're not losing any service they
paid for (any student fee probably - I'm just guessing - only covers them 
being able to work on the U.'s computers - Usenet access is incidental and
not covered)

	For example, in this particular case I have received complaints 
   from people on the net about obnoxious, crud, abusive and generally 
   inappropriate news postings. In the case of a security problem the

I'm tempted to say let the offended take this up with the offendors, since you
have no control over what they actually post, but I don't know specifics.

   university lawyers have said "pull the plug".  So I can take away
   access.  However in the case above I'm not at all sure what to do.  It's
   something of a BIG grey area.  If I take way Internet access without
   good cause (whatever that is) it might be construde as Northeastern U.

Hey, you're the Sys Admin (...aren't you?), and you Admin the Sys.  If access
is indeed a privilege, it's subject to your rules, not anybody's rights.  If
they piss you off, yank them (subject, of course, to whoever really runs the
U. (or not, if they give you absolute power over your domain)).  If anybody
flames you, you can truthfully say they were notified of the rules and they
intentionally broke them, therefore they are deserving of penalties they were
also notified of.  This is not abridging anybody's rights - access is granted
by the U. as a courtesy, provided they stick to a few basic rules.  If they
break the rules, they don't lose any rights, just the courtesy.  If they don't
like it, they can get access elsewhere.

	In the mean time N.U. and the U.S. get a black eye around the world 
   for the nasty public postings.

People, I think, generally realize that people are responsible for their own
posts, and that sysops are not - you only _see_ posts from people who don't.

	Now it may end up that I can do nothing.  

Naw; there's always accidental file deletions, mail/news misrouting, account
mistakes... ;-)

Please understand before flaming me: I do _not_ advocate any kind of monitoring
or anything silly like that.  I'm simply saying let people be responsible for
their own posts, and any flames they get for them, _but_ if they break rules
that they were notified of, they should be penalized.

I also think most people need to just lighten up a bit.

I invite rebuttals (but not flames).



| It breathes fire. -more-  | Jim Niemira       | This message brought
| It breathes fire. -more-  | Senior Janitor    | to you by the letter
| You are not happy. -more- | niemira@fstrf.org | 'R' and the number 2