lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (01/18/85)
The telco circuits for vortex failed earlier today, and are only now recovering. Please excuse any disruptions. Three points: 1) Nobody has ever claimed that moderated newsgroups present a simpler set of legal issues (at least at face value) than unmoderated groups. What I (and others) *have* been saying is that it is simply NOT practical, due to other legal issues (involving more "entities" than just Usenet), technical limitations, financial limitations, and the desires of the people willing to make exceptionally expensive cable satellite space available without charge, to run unscreened materials through the satellite broadcast system. By the way, given recent cases where computer bulletin board operators have been held legally accountable for messages posted on their systems, even when they exercised no control over message input or content, legal issues even in unscreened message distribution systems seem to be increasingly cloudy. And of course, in the opinion of many, it wouldn't be desirable to run unscreened materials in any case (even if it were possible, which it is *not*) since there are many people who very much want an alternative to the current flow of often repetitive and low (or zero) information messages that now appear. I'm not saying that some people don't like EVERYTHING on Usenet. They do exist. What I am saying is that many people want an alternative, and to insist that no alternatives be allowed is unreasonable and unfair. 2) This is just an experiment, not a service. It might prove unworkable on purely technical grounds. However, what we learn from this might be useful in broader contexts that will help to advance the state of the art in other ways. It is a useful experiment, regardless of the flaming issues. 3) I have not yet made any final decisions regarding my recommendations or planned actions for the immediate future of the experiment. --Lauren--
preece@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/23/85)
> And of course, in the opinion of many, it wouldn't be desirable > to run unscreened materials in any case (even if it were possible, > which it is *not*) since there are many people who very much > want an alternative to the current flow of often repetitive > and low (or zero) information messages that now appear. ---------- I would suggest that if the Stargate net starts to look oppressive, either by heavy handed moderation or because major landlinks start to go away, that those who believe in free expression retaliate by not making their contributions available to Stargate. Copyright your postings and specifically deny republication rights in any forum that does not, as a matter of policy, publish ALL submissions. If a significant portion of the technical material became unavailable to the moderated service it might make it look a lot less desirable. If there was no significant loss of material we would simply have to conclude that it wasn't an important issue to those who generate the technical material. That's freedom. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece