gary@fairlight.oz (Gary Evesson) (10/28/87)
I've been following this argument for a while, and feel that it is a valid question. Where does the responsibility of the system administrator begin and end? The only way that seems reasonable to me is that the PERSON who posts must take responsibility for their own words. What right does an S.A. have to censor peoples postings?. As an S.A. I would not even consider editing users postings - it would be a gross invasion their rights of free speech. gary@fairlight.oz Gary Evesson
bch@ecsvax.UUCP (10/29/87)
In article <301@fairlight.oz> gary@fairlight.oz (Gary Evesson) writes: >I've been following this argument for a while, and feel that it is a valid >question. Where does the responsibility of the system administrator begin and >end? > >The only way that seems reasonable to me is that the PERSON who posts must >take responsibility for their own words. What right does an S.A. have to censor >peoples postings?. As an S.A. I would not even consider editing users postings - >it would be a gross invasion their rights of free speech. I agree that the question of SA responsibility for postings is a valid one. I'm not sure, however, that free speech is at issue here. You would need to prove that posting to usenet is can somehow be construed as a constitutionally guaranteed right. If it is, then we're may have to provide facilities for giving logins to everybody and her father that comes in the door. We're also going to have to be a whole lot more careful about keeping the news software running correctly or face the possibility of civil liberties suits by our users. (There's a half a smiley in the last two sentences in case anyone wants to take me seriously.) It is my observation (caveat) that while usenet does not really exist as an entity, the *components* of usenet are privately owned and access to them is a grant not an entitlement. Ecsvax is not a democracy. Our users pays their money and takes their chances and -- essentially -- have no rights beyond those we grant them. I have every right to censor outgoing articles should I choose to do so. That we don't is largely a matter of ethics, aesthetics and lack of time. As an SA I can think of no reasonable mechanism for ascertaining whether articles are libelous or even (as some would have us do) truthful. This isn't a law office and we don't have paid researchers. If, however, someone from this site posts an article that is patently obscene or vulgar and the matter is brought to my attention then I will certainly exercise my right of censorship as an SA working for my organization. In the 7 years or so that I've been reading news I can count the number of articles I might censor unilaterally on 0 hands -- though there have been several that I might have jawboned the submittor into cancelling. -- Byron Howes usenet/bitnet address: bch@ecsvax