webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (01/13/88)
In article <1089@hao.ucar.edu>, woods@hao.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes: > .... > It's called common courtesy and respect for the wishes of his site >and/or intervening sites. If his site or his feed site has chosen not >to get a certain newsgroup, there is probably a good reason for it (and What makes you think that a site manager has training in how best to restrict the information that users have access to? >even if there isn't, so what? They still made the choice not to get that Hmmm, it is going to be difficult to reason with someone who doesn't see a need for ``good reason.'' >newsgroup). At any rate, that choice should be respected. It has nothing >to do with censorship; If the govenor of Colorado decides that government roads should not be used to transport material on water skiing in Florida and stations guards on the state roads to prevent anyone from carrying such tourist propaganda into Colorado, would it be censorship? >it's common courtesy. ... Or, to put it another way: do you really want to be on a net where communication is held hostage by sites run by people with opinions like these? It is typical of some sites that they would rather accuse other's users of being unmannered than to restrict their net access to only those sites that carry the same net classifications that they do. At the very least, it would only be common courtesy to send Greg a copy of any message you intended to post to net news to make sure he didn't think it was inappropriate usage of his site to forward it. --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) Many people resist a change in manners, no matter how useful it may be. ---- Judith Martin's Common Courtesy (Atheneum, 1985)
heiby@falkor.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (01/14/88)
Webber (webber@brandx.rutgers.edu) writes: > If the govenor of Colorado decides that government roads should not be > used to transport material on water skiing in Florida and stations guards > on the state roads to prevent anyone from carrying such tourist > propaganda into Colorado, would it be censorship? Probably, but if you decide that *YOUR DRIVEWAY* should not be used to transport some material and you hire a security guard to prevent people from trespassing on your property, then you are simply asserting your property rights. I believe this is a more apt analogy. My boss pays my phone bills. If he says to cut down on the traffic, I'll do so. I hope I don't have to cut newsgroups to do it, but don't doubt for a minute that I'll respect my company's right to control their property. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Intel architectures build character."
kak@stc-auts.UUCP (Kris Kugel) (01/19/88)
> What makes you think that a site manager has training in how best to > restrict the information that users have access to? HE'S RESPONSABLE FOR THE SYSTEM. This includes disk usage and phone costs. > If the govenor of Colorado decides that government roads should not be > used to transport material on water skiing in Florida and stations guards > on the state roads to prevent anyone from carrying such tourist > propaganda into Colorado, would it be censorship? > > --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) Ok, but make the example more like the real situation! It's more like a neighbor asking me to maintain several magazine subscriptions for magazines which *I* have no interest in just so he can borrow them from me after I get them. We don't always get all news groups that we are interested in, and have reliability problems with some of the ones we do get. the internal gateway machine people don't have the extra hours of time necessary to fix all our problems. A solution would be for us to develop our own, independent connections. The only problem with doing this for random, independent newsgroups in general is the difficulty of keeping track of which machines carry which newsgroups. We don't pay anybody money specificly for usenet yet; when we do, THEN I'll complain if we have problems. Kris A. Kugel Storage Tek: ...{ uunet!nbires, hao, ihnp4 }!stcvax!stc-auts!kak High Country Software: ...{hao, wldrdg, uunet!nbires}!hicntry!kak "It is better to light one small cannibal than to torch the duchess"
rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) (01/20/88)
In article <707@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
A lot of stuff about, why should a site be "allowed" to decide
what it carries. [and moaning about censorship]
This issue is very simple to settle:
DISCLAIMER: The following is an EXAMPLE only, and does not represent
my or my employers viewpoint an any way AT ALL.
If I said:
"Webber, I require you to load the entire body of natzi propaganda
into your hard disk. I require you to do it now. You may optionally
include any decenting opinions you desire. You must keep it there until
I say otherwise"
You would [most likely] tell me to blow off. "I" don't have
_ANY_ "right" to you, your machine, your property, or your resources.
In this instance your "right" to privacy, property, and the like
enjoy a priority to my "right" to have my views heard in a public
forum.
In the common law of the United States, the UK, and all
"western" nations [and most likely the whole world] all "rights"
are ranked by priorities. A good, if dumb, obvious example would
be:
I have a "right" to own and discharge fire-arms.
You have a "right" NOT to be gunned down in the streets.
Guess which "right" generally holds greatest priority??? ;-)
Rob.