Re: hum

Tim O'Connor (oconnort@nyu.edu)
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 15:11:17 -0500

On Mon, Jan 11, 1999 at 09:20:21PM -0500, LeMelon@aol.com wrote:

> I don't know about anyone else here, but I am angry.  I attempted to join
> another mailing list the other day, and decided to get right in on the current
> topic of conversation.  Was I dismayed to discover that the list owner reads
> all messages before they are sent to the list... and then decides if they are
> WORTHY of the list!  

Yes, as others have noted, it's not uncommon -- it's called "moderated."
The closest analogy is that of an editor of a publication who weeds out
what does and does not get posted.

> My post was refused.  Granted, I may not have had the
> most intellectually stimulating comment to share... but my word, doesn't the
> first amendment have an opinion on this?  

Actually, no, it's not relevant.  Unless you were being specifically
targeted for suppression; even then, it's a grey area.  If it's a 
private list, then the owner(s) have the ability to run it as they see
fit, as long as they aren't breaking any laws in filtering out your
messages, such as discriminating against you due to gender, race, 
religion, and so forth.

In reality (not a circumstance I always like), the thing to keep in 
mind is how the American law is framed:

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment 
	of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; 
	or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or 
	the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
	petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is what pushes some people into starting their own lists.  Congress
so far hasn't directly tried to kill a mailing list, to my knowledge!

Certain institutions that are public (e.g., public universities) may
have restrictions on how much they can constrain you.  But as hard as it
may be to imagine, issues of "freedom of speech" are rarely easy to
characterize or define.

For anyone interested, there's a wonderful book that came along this 
summer, by Mike Godwin, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, analyzing the issues of speech online vs. speech in person
or on paper.  It's CYBER RIGHTS, available from Amazon, and is quite 
a nice look at many of these issues and the ambiguities involved. 

> Okay, maybe I'm blowing it slightly
> out of proportion... but geez.  It probably also wouldn't have bothered me had
> my comment been accepted.  But I'm fuming.  Needless to say, I unsubscribed
> immediately.  Anyone care to comment?

I understand your feeling.  There are some lists run by people who have
serious problems with authority, in which, for them, getting power and 
control becomes not unlike placing a loaded "Ortgies calibre 7.65 
automatic" into the hands of a child.

As far as unsubbing right away, keep in mind something wise that is, I
think, attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: that the 
best reply to [hatred/offensive speech/oppressive conditions] is MORE 
speech.  Don't shrink from what happend; speak up.  The worst that 
might occur is that you'd get into a spat.  But would that make you feel 
any worse than you already do?  

Nah -- few things feel as good as standing up for yourself! 

--tim