At 09:27 PM 11/6/96 -0600, you wrote: : [snip] :In short they have now opened themselves up for defamation and liable suites by imposing an editorial policy on the contents of this list (1). This is not a they; this is an individual with (and within) his own rights. Nonsense, no policy has been stated. The owner determined that the good Dr. had been disruptive and had become a detriment to the owner's list (and possibly sanity). : :This opens up the potential, for example, for Tim May to sue the operator of :the Cypherpunks mailing list now for posts from users (even anonymous ones) :which defame or otherwise liable his character, reputation, or ability to :pursue income in his chosen field. PLEASE, let's not drag poor Tim into this. Hasn't he suffered enough?! This does not follow even from the tortured logic above. :In short the operators of the list :becomes publishers and distributors of the material. It is the legal :difference between a bookstore and a book publisher. :Censorship is censorship, irrespective of the source of the limitation. :Free expression is impossible in an environment of censorship. The right to :speak not only implies a right to not speak, it also implies the right to :emit complete mumbo jumbo. The actual content of the speech is irrelevant. "Implies the right"?? Rights either exist or do not exist (endowed by their Creator); they are not be implied. The content of speech is certainly not irrelevant. Disruptive speech and behavior have never been protected. : :The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and press. [snip] Only that they :would not have limitations on their actions imposed by the federal government. : : ARTICLE I. : : Congress shall make no law [snip] It says CONGRESS! We're not discussing an action by the federal govt. here. I may choose to ask those visiting my house to refrain from discussing mumbo jumbo; if the individuals persist, I can ask, nay demand, that they leave. : :And just to make shure it is clear, the right to put something on the paper :(ie speech) is distinctly different from being the one doing the actual :printing. What paper? What does this mean? : :I have argued in the past that this list is a defacto public list because of :the way it is advertised and to the extent it is advertised. All the protests :by the operator to the contrary will not convince a court. Advertised? It has been a matter of regret that I _stumbled_ into this unruly tangle of wits. Simply because one has argued that "the list is ... a defacto public list," don't make it so any more than my arguing that a newspaper available to the public can have no control over its own editorial policy. Let's get beyond this. Cordially, Alec PGP Fingerprint: pub 1024/41207EE5 1996/04/08 Alec McCrackin <camcc@abraxis.com> Key fingerprint = 09 13 E1 CB B3 0C 88 D9 D7 D4 10 F0 06 7D DF 31