Forwarded message:

Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:10:19 -0800 From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>

So, if a bookstore ejects a drunken lout who is disturbing the other patrons, is the bookstore suddenly reclassfied as a book publisher? By your logic, you seem to think so.

Not at all. The drunk is not being ejected on the content of their expression (beliefs). Vulis posed no physical or economic danger to anyone, the operator simply could take no more of his POV. This is distinctly different than the example you are trying to equate. In short, another straw man.

So, if I have a party at my house and limit who I invite, or eject someone who is misbehaving (insulting my other guests, barfing on the floor, smoking when I tell him not to, whatever), you are saying that I "open myself up for libel suits" by other guests who don't like the things they hear from others at my party?

Only if you advertise the party through a public forum as open to anyone and you are the one supplying the booze (as advertised in the ad). The operator of this list has NEVER implicity or explicity expressed any form of policy concerning who may subscribe to cpunks.

So, anyone who exercises ownership rights to his property suddenly becomes legally responsible for the alleged misdeeds of anyone visiting his house?

My subscription to this mailing list does not imply any ownership toward its operator. He owns the software and hardware, he does not own my thoughts or the fact that I use this forum to distribute them. The fact he pays the bills does not give him any right to edit or otherwise control my submissions without an explicit warning to me prior to his acceptance of my submission.

Could you cite some cases supporting your point of view?

Try CompuServe and Prodigy. The logic that was used in both those cases is 1-to-1 applicable to this. For somebody who supposedly supports individual initiative, liberty, and anarchy you sure rely on precedence a lot. The whole point to crypto, Internet, and technology in general is to break the status quo not to promote it.

this outcome, strongly. However, it is far from establishing that a bar which enforces certain rules ("no shirt, no service") and which has an entire class of employees hired to _eject_ patrons has suddenly become liable for slanderous comments made by customers. And so on.)

Look at the recent 'Hooters' case involving women waitpersons. For a business establishment to impose 'no shirt, no shoes, no service" they MUST post such rules in a public place. This was NOT done EVER on cpunks. Again, you are trying to equate two distinctly different cases as equivalent, another straw man. Jim Choate