[ Article reposted from alt.config,alt.sex,alt.sex.wizards,alt.sex.stories.d,alt.sex.oral,alt.sex.masturbation,alt.sex.fat,alt.abortion,alt.politics.abortion,alt.flame.abortion ] [ Author was Chief Justice Robinson ] [ Posted on 1 Aug 1995 12:29:06 -0400 ] From: Internet Judge Robinson Original-Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: alt.sex.orgy Topic: Is Usenet Public or Private? It doesn't matter! Opinion-Number: 95-1 (Published) [Followups trimmed to reduce bandwidth on replies - This is the first posting in this thread.] Irfon-Kim Ahmad (3isa@qlink.queensu.ca) wrote: : Paul Robinson (tdarcos@access2.digex.net) wrote: : > To assist with some of the problems other groups have had, any article in : > the group not dealing with sex among 3 or more persons in corpus is : > subject to cancellation. : > The group is proposed to be unmoderated. : Aren't these two paragraphs in conflict with each other? No. Since I create the group, just as the first person who discovers something is usually the one that gets to name it, I can claim that I "own" it as its creator, since I get to set the terms under which it is created. Since I have set the requirements, this means that as the "owner" of this newsgroup, I may simply cancel posts that violate the above requirement, by simply issuing a cancellation either in my own name or in the name of the party who posted it. I am saying I may do this as a matter of right, being that if there is any "property value" in the bandwidth of a group, the person who created it should therefore have some ownership of it, in the same way the "owner" of a cork board or the "owner" of beachfront property has the right to police unbecoming conduct. More than that, it is also the right of any person to abate nuisance. I do not need permission from the state to remove garbage from a public beach, if I see candy wrappers, empty soda cans, and other trash, I may assume those to be unwanted material and remove them. Conversely, if I see beach towels, radios or wallets, I may either leave them alone or take them to the nearest lifeguard or police station if my intent is to remove them to PREVENT stealing. If my intent is to remove them to make sure they are safeguarded for the owner rather than to confiscate them for my own use (as in stealing) then I am not committing a crime by taking them, as it is not my intent to convert them to my property. So there are two concepts: Usenet is private property, or usenet is public property. I can act in either manner, and it's still right. And so, I see the usenet the same way: if it is private property (as it probably is since the machines it runs on are privately owned), then I, as the first person to create a group (since the "deed" would be logged at the "registrar-recorder's office") as shown by the copy of the "cmsg newgroup" posting at UUNET, I would "own" the group, and may act in any way I choose, even if it is capricious. If I set up a group with moderation on it, I choose how posting is to be permitted, even if I act capriciously. I could do so as a moderator, and no one would have any say in the matter unless enough people get mad enough to get the administrators to change the moderator address to someone else. That takes about the level of mad of a "Clarence Thomas God is Coming" or "Canter & Siegel Green Card Lawyers" posting to get people quite that mad. So in short, moderators are self-appointed, they serve for life, and it essentially takes a strong vote of the "legislature" (the individual site administrators) to imeach him/her and remove them from office. We essentially have the power of Supreme Court Judges as far as the newsgroup(s) we run are concerned. If they stop acting ("Resign") then someone has to complain and someone else has to accept an appointment or self-appoint themselves. Unless the moderator chooses to appoint someone who accepts the honor. Then there is the other possibility. If Usenet is in the manner of a public beach and no one owns it, then I, as any other user of that public space, has the right - but not the obligation - to remove broken bottles and rotting food that attracts flies, as a matter of protecting ourselves. Therefore, if I create the group I can either not let messages in or approve them by setting the group moderated. If I do not set it moderated, I may perform an "abortion" by "retroactive cancelation" of a post. (Since I don't oppose abortion, I have no problems there!) If I am not the moderator, I may remove any posting I see as "trash" meaning totally without merit and inappropriate; I will not do that for messages I do not agree with, or even for ones that are advertising if it is related to the subject matter at hand of the group, only for ones that are a "clear and present danger" to the intent of the group. Similar to the grounds under _Miller v. California_, for defining obscenity, if a posting is "completely without any relevance to the title of the newsgroup and to the charter," then it is "off topic" and may be removed. For example, since I throw in a comment about abortions in this posting, I would consider it appropriate for abortion flaming groups. I have deleted the sex groups from it because it does not deal with sexuality at all, and so on. I am going to write an Internet Draft eventually, because these rules need to be enforced. There is no law here, east or west of the Pecos. Well, Judge Roy Bean, err, I mean Internet Judge Paul Robinson is here, and he acts as Judge, Jury and Executioner. It is therefore my ruling that usenet newsgroups have the character of shared private property, the creator of a newsgroup owns that group whether moderated or not, and may do with that property as they please, unless they are overthrown in a coup by the administrators of the sites, or that the populace overthrows them and demands a new Maximum Leader who acts in a less totalitarian fashion. What authority do I have? None, the same as with any other judge, anywhere in the world. It is only to the extent that other parties agree with my rulings that I have any authority at all. If my rulings are complied with, then I do have authority. If they are not complied with, then I do not. It is exactly what a President of the U.S. said: Sure, the Supreme Court can issue orders for _anything_, but where are their troops to enforce their orders? And that's exactly where my power comes in. Either people believe me to be honest and fair, and they go along, or they don't, and they ignore me. It's their choice, and time will tell if I am right, or I am wrong. If I am right, this was waaay overdue; if I am wrong, this is too soon. Nobody wants the right to free speech damaged by zealousness, but nobody wants a beach full of sewage either. The Soviet Union collapsed due to excess order. Lebanon has finally come back from years of warfare and chaos because of at least a minimal amount of public force used to protect against criminals and wrongdoers. What we need is the absolute minimum action necessary to keep things in line. IAB helped with that by setting the standards, but it did not enforce them. Well, now, I (and those of us who want to take this high standard) must stand now and enforce some rules, if we are to keep the lawless and the polluters from destroying what we have. If we are to enjoy the freedom of unrestricted, unmoderated, free-for-all postings, we must have a little order. Not a whole lot - I know how dangerous it is to have people who think they should act like God and patrol everything - but just enough to maintain minimum order. Keeping the streets clean. Rousting the aggressive drunks and panhandlers. Leaving the drunks who sleep in the gutters alone, leave the panhandlers who sleep on unused benches at night alone. Rousting the drunks who sleep on gutters when they're about to be run over. Helping an old lady who is trying to get across the network. Leaving the vendors who sit quietly selling their wares. Rousting the vendors who paste ads all over hundreds of different newsgroups in separate messages so that once you've seen their ad, you can't ignore it because it's not the same message number. Nothing major, just the minimum necessary to keep things in line. My motto: unless someone complains and there's a reason, leave well enough alone. The 'Net usually can take care of itself, but when it can't, remember the Hypocratic Oath: DO NO HARM. That means do as little as possible, cause as little injury to others, get in, get it done, and get the hell out of the way before you start a traffic jam or a fistfight. Maybe this is the reason so many drug dealers are killing each other. They can't sue, so their only option over disputes is "frontier justice," only without a disinterested party to keep them from escalating the situation further into gunplay. Well, that's almost where things are going on the Network, what with people issuing threats to one another and the riot squads being called in, up to some kid posting a story about some girl where he decides to torture her, and as a result, he almost ends up getting free room and board in Federal Prison. This sort of thing doesn't need to happen. The Movie Industry developed a self-censorship board; we need to do the same. So I'm appointing myself the "Supreme Court of Internet" and taking cases or acting "su sponte" or whatever it is when a court takes notice of something on its own action. If we show we have our own system to handle disputes, then we can stop proactive legislation by the real world, or preempt it, or make it irrelevant. Your friend of the court briefs are invited and requsted (your comments will be accepted.) By Order of His Honor, Paul Robinson Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Internet Cite This opinion: "Property Rights under Usenet News: 95-1. {1 Intr. Reptr. 1}"