this deals with a sci newsgroup being moderated, which is an exception to the "unmoderated" rule. On Mon, 19 May 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:59:27 -0500 From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org To: mail2news@manifold.algebra.com, hkt@wwa.com, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu, cypherpunks@manifold.algebra.com Cc: ichudov@manifold.algebra.com Subject: Re: CFV: moderate sci.cryonics -- I vote NO Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,news.groups,alt.cypherpunks,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.anonymous.remailers,alt.conspiracy
Lewis McCarthy (lmccarth@cs.umass.edu) wrote in <3377FA31.167E@cs.umass.edu>: * Charles Platt writes: * > I feel it's unfortunate that the * > charter was worded to exclude anonymous postings, but clearly this * > news group does need to be moderated, and I believe that Keith will * > do so fairly and openly. * * That's all well and good, but the CFV is a referendum (in part) on the * particular charter that appears in the CFV, not on an alternate policy * that purportedly may be followed by the moderator. Unfairly applied
That is correct.
The promises by the proposed moderator are even more suspicious given that:
This future moderator PROMISES TO VIOLATE HIS OWN CHARTER.
Given the subject, the attempt to limit the content is going to be tough. What do you do with the religious zealots which say "God does not like frozen people" ?
The charter is absolutely clear in respect to what is not allowed:
Charter> Unacceptable messages include personal attacks, messages
You had better specifically define what a "personal attack" is. You may never limit my ability to call you a "motherfucker" in any forum, and if you call that a "personal attack" then you have a censorship problem.
Charter> posted without a valid sender address, and any message not Charter> pertaining to the topics above.
And what about crossposting? Does the charter put any limit on that? Any limitations on that are Unconstitutional.
(see
http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=5944883&server=db97p2x&CONTEXT=864091788.16601&hitnum=11
for the charter and ballot)
* written rules have a real chance of being challenged, whereas with * unwritten rules there's much less hope of receiving fair treatment. * Overly broad restrictions, like the one in the CFV regarding messages * from unreplyable senders, are a boon for selective enforcement.
I repeat again, in my opinion, there is no valid reason for any moderated discussion newsgroup to ever forbid anonymous and pseudonymous postings. Such restrictions destroy the value that usenet newsgroups have.
Exactly, and anonymity is a constitutional right.
Correspondently, I will strongly oppose any proposal that restricts posters ability to post anonymously.
Presence of such provision in the charter is a strong indication that the proponent is a control freak.
* It's been a couple of years since I voted on a newsgroup proposal, but * I'll be voting NO on this sci.cryonics reorganization. Get back to me * if the charter is reworded s.t. the moderator is directed to judge a * message primarily based on its _content_ rather than its _sender_.
Could not agree more!
* CFV pointer: Message-ID <863077501.7020@isc.org>, posted to the usual * places on May 8 by David Bostwick * -- * Lewis http://www.cs.umass.edu/~lmccarth/lmkey.asc "And all the * science, I don't understand; it's just my job, eight days a week..."
Both this David Bostwick and this Charles Platt are suspicious characters. They have past or present bofh.cabal connections, do they not?