[10095] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: What goes around, comes around
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean McLinden)
Mon Feb 7 08:44:25 1994
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 1994 08:22:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean McLinden <sean@dsl.pitt.edu>
Reply-To: Sean McLinden <sean@dsl.pitt.edu>
To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.com>
Cc: dave@oldcolo.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <m0pTNq6-000BbeC@mercury.mcs.com>
On Sun, 6 Feb 1994, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Liberty? Since <when> does liberty exist in <this> form? You're inventing
> rights out of whole cloth -- rights that the US Constitution and Bill of
> Rights <DO NOT> and never have guaranteed.
I invented no rights. I do not claim that rights are pertinent to this
case. Reread what I wrote.
> Freedom of the press belongs to those who own presses. This person
> effectively came into all our offices and homes and <STOLE> our presses.
I didn't claim that this was freedom of the press and clearly it isn't a
freedom of the press issue (the principle of which has been mightily
distorted over the years). The rights of individuals are a separate issue.
> Now, you can say that we make those presses publically available. Yes, we
> do. But that access comes with a code of conduct which is, in the large,
> agreed to and obeyed. When it is violated we have the right to seek
> sanction for the violation.
It is a convention, nothing more and nothing less. If you didn't
understand the risks when you took them, you are a fool. If you did, then
you may complain all that you want but other than your own personal
offense, you have no grounds for your complaint. At anytime you risked
that this was happening. Under the circumstances of your trade this is
what is known as "the risk of doing business" and unless you can prove
that this person's actions were deliberately calculated to cause you
financial embarassment, I suspect that you are limited to indignation as
a response.
> Again, it was not the <content> of his message that I objected to. It was
> the manner in which he sent the content.
"The manner" to which you object is available to anyone who so chooses to
use it.
> If you wish to argue that this restriction should not apply, I'm sure you
> won't mind someone sitting outside your window at 3:00 AM with a bullhorn
> preaching about the coming of Satan and that you should embrace him now!
> Certainly, everyone has a right to free speech, yes?
I hope that you aren't talking to me since *I* did not claim that this
was an issue of "free speech". In fact, I suspect that it *isn't*. The
"liberty" to which I refer is the principle that that which is not
*explicitly* illegal is legal. Believe it or not, in many parts of the
world this is not true.
You might, of course, attempt to argue "theft of services" which is
probably the only rational economic basis for your arguments. But this
would be difficult to prove given that while this person's actions were
unreasonable, they were not otherwise inconsistent with established
procedure for posting to openly shared newsgroups.
Sean
