Re: Tolerance (fwd)

Hi All,

Forwarded message:

> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:35:00 -0700
> From: shamrock@netcom.com (Lucky Green)
> Subject: Re: Tolerance
> 
> Hell no. Do I believe he has a right to join the list? Yes, with one
> possible exception. The list owner can ban anybody, since the list is using
> the owner's resources. In this case, from a libertarian standpoint, not
> even an explanation of such an action would be required.

If the person joining the public list is warned that the list owner reserves
that right I would agree. It would require such a warning to be issued at
the time the person received their notification of successful joining. If
that warning is not present and the list is advertised as PUBLIC then NO,
not even the list operator can ethicaly refuse membership to anyone for
any reason other than criminal activity by a member. Otherwise it isn't
public.

Just because you provide a service does not give you unlimited or even
limited control if you make it clear it is public and therefore open to
anyone.

Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or
property without their prior consent then it should be legal and
permissible. A public list means that the owner does not reserve any rights
of moderation or cencorship. This is the way public is applied to the
government and it is the way it MUST be applied to private individuals.
This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In
short the ethical situation is the same as if a city declares a park to be
public and then begins to bar people from sleeping there at night.


                                                  Jim Choate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> If the person joining the public list is warned that the list
> owner reserves that right [to kick people off] I would agree.
> It would require such a warning to be issued at the time the
> person received their notification of successful joining. If
> that warning is not present and the list is advertised as
> PUBLIC then NO, not even the list operator can ethicaly refuse
> membership to anyone for any reason other than criminal
> activity by a member. Otherwise it isn't public.

Here I have to respectfully disagree, totally, with Jim.  One
does not have to "reserve" one's rights.  They are inherent and
my be exercised pretty much at will (I say "pretty much" because
there are situations where "implied contract" applies).

A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open
to the public.  Nevertheless, without first "reserving the right"
to do so, the owners may tell you to leave if they don't like 
the way you sound, look or smell.  Criminal activity is not
required legally nor ethically.  Your ejection may, in fact, be
totally arbitrary.  I don't see a privately maintained, "public"
list as being philosophically any different.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~