From: drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Danny)
Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Jesus was from outter space!
Date: 24 Sep 92 17:47:43 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

In article <1992Sep23.90758.11506@ms.uky.edu>, morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan) writes:
> drumm@cnsvax.uwec.edu (Danny) writes:
>>
>>Help!  Your opinions are needed!
>>
>>We have a student at our university that insists on posting garbage to 
>>lists and newsgroups across the internet.  Garbage is my own feeling about
>>it, some examples are:
>>[....examples deleted....]
> 
> Well, he certainly has the right to use the forum, since you established
> it for his use (and the use of others, presumably).

Thanks for the replies.  after reading a few of them, I can't help 
fealing that y'all are missing the boat.

We do not get many complaints from usenet, where the news literate use
kill files, but if we did, I would still have a problem.  Today I had
seven or more (they are still comming in) complaints from list owners
(listserv and otherwise, that have no kill files) who have received 
numerous complaints from their subscribers.  These lists, to which 
this party does not subscribe, have nothing to do with his postings.

I am an active opponent to the war on (some) drugs, and I try to educate
people where and whenever I can :).  If I posted pro marijuana articles
to this newsgroup, you might put me in your kill file, but how would
you feel if I sent them directly to you every day, so that you would have
to continually erase them.

I'm trying to get you to see it from my point of view.  This is not an
isolated case of fun and games. day after day, I have to answer the 
complaints of all kinds of list owners.  In this country, I have the 
right to free speach, but that does not mean I can speak in you
living room.


> (The following is a "one-man" debate; be patient, I'm trying to prove a point)
> 
> Here's where things become dicey.  Under the "limited public forum"
> doctrine (as I understand it), the owners/providers of a forum can
> determine the topic(s) of discussion.  

And they/we do. but what can I do when these topics are undermined.


> I'd argue that the Usenet
> newsgroup mechanism establishes hundreds of forums, each with its
> own topic (or topics).  Posting to newsgroups outside the scope of
> a particular newsgroup would, in my opinion, constitute "exceeding the 
> topics" of that newsgroup.

yes, but again, what can I do?

> 	- We could probably come up with a rationale for posting anything
> 	  to any newsgroup.  ("Of course, this belongs on comp.sys.att;
> 	  I'm talking about the phone company!")  

you got, that's just what is happening. 

 
>>We are getting many complaints from people about these postings, but we 
>>are not sure how to respond.  Many of the posts are only vaguely 
>>associated to the lists they are posted to.  and the kicker is that this
>>person is not in any discussions on these lists.  He just expects everyone
>>else to read his material. 
> 
> Well, Usenet is like that......8)

yes, but many specialized lists are not.

> 
> Here's how I would respond:
> 
> 	- Point out that you, as the administrator, assume no responsibility
> 	  for any user's postings; you merely provide the service.  Point out
> 	  that most people don't complain to the Postal Service about junk
> 	  mail; the parallel is very close, and it emphasizes your role as
> 	  the service provider.

yes, this would work, but it would not solve the problem he has created
for hundreds or thousands of people.

 
> 	- Point out that retaliatory measures (such as email floods) can
> 	  cause harm to your other users, who probably aren't involved in
> 	  this situation; request that the offended parties refrain from
> 	  such retaliation.

sorry, but this has nothing to do with the problem.  the offended parties
are NOT the problem.


> In this particular case, I don't believe you can do anything about it.


I was afraid someone would say that.

-- Danny

==================================================
|  The single most 'dangerous' effect of LSD is  |
|  that users will probably be unable to vote    |
|  Republican for many, many years  after use.   |
|                  -- jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu       |
==================================================
Xref: sparky alt.censorship:7676 misc.legal:17737 alt.politics.correct:5498 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:2882