Subject:
|
Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:57:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8584 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.terms, Marc Nelson, Jr. wrote:
<snip>
> You posted a list of examples that may or may not be grounds for a "timeout"
> - I think we should know what specific behaviors we should be avoiding. I
> wouldn't want the absence of clear guidelines to have a chilling effect on
> LUGNET discussion.
>
> Marc Nelson Jr.
>
> <http://www.lugnet.com/~326/
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/manjr/LUGNET/thumblink.jpg Marc's
> Creations>>
In situations such as these, I often consult 'the oracle'...
Judge Payton: "Judges are bound to interpret the Constitution within the strict
parameters of the text itself. The Constitution doesn't provide for a right of
privacy--the 'right' doesn't exist."
Sam Seaborn: "The Third Ammendment says soldiers can't be quartered in private
homes. The Fifth provides protection against self-incrimination and the fourth
against unreasonable searches. Do you deny the right to privacy lives in those
passages?"
Judge Payton: "No I do not deny it, but the fact that the framers enumerated
those specific protections is all the more reason to believe that they had no
intention of makig privacy a de facto right."
Sam: "They just fought a revolution--they had no question of their freedoms.
The Bill of Rights was meant to codify the most crucial of those rights, not to
limit the others."
Josiah Bartlett: "Payton, do I have the right to put on an ugly plaid jacket
and a loud polka-dot tie and walk down main street?"
Judge Payton: "Yes"
Josiah Bartlett: "And where in the Constitution is that right guaranteed?"
Judge Payton: "First Ammendment--freedom of expression"
Josiah Bartlett: "What about the use of cream in my coffee--surely there can be
no free speech arguement to be made there."
Judge Payton: "No."
Josiah Bartlett: "So you have no objection to the state of New Hamphshire
passing a law banning the use of cream in coffee?"
Judge Payton: "I would have strong objection, Mr.President, as I like cream as
well, but I would have no constitutional basis to strike down that law when you
brought your case to the Supreme Court."
. . .
Sam Seaborn: "In 1787 there was a sizeable block of delegates who were
initially opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is what a member of the Georgia
delegation had to say by way of opposition: 'if we list a set of rights, some
fools are going to claim that the people are entitled only to those rights
enumerated and no others. The Framers..."
Judge Payton: "Were you just calling me a fool, Mr Seaborn?"
Sam: "I wasn't calling you a fool, sir--the brand new state of Georgia was."
Judge Payton: "Gentlemen--laws must emanate from the Constitutuion"
Toby Ziegler: "There are natural laws, judge."
Judge Payton: "I do not deny there are natural laws, Mr. Ziegler
I only deny that 'judges' are empowered to enforce them."
Toby: "Then who will?"
- - -
By this little snippet from The West Wing (and my time in rtlToronto), I
personally take the idea that listing specific 'rules' for trying to encompass
every little detail will leave the door wide open for loopholes and abuse.
By the very fact that the 'framers of LUGNETs new policy' choose to not get into
'exactitude' means that people
a) are left to what should hopefully be 'common sense judgement' where posting
is concerend
b) have less opportunity to look for loopholes to abuse the system
I personally think it would be a very bad idea for the Transition Team to make a
specific list of what's allowed and what isn't, for, in the future, some fool
will post something that will violate the 'spirit of the law' but not the letter
of the law, and this fool will hide behind the specifics of the TOU.
So I'm asking you, Marc, as well as others, to give this a chance. LUGNET is
one of the oldest usergroups on the internet. It's had its share of
knockarounds and falldowns, but it's still here, and, for myself, still doing a
great job.
Anyway, I can't think of what else to say here so I'll stop now.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LUGNET Posting Policy Update
|
| (...) What part of the TOU is ambiguous? It says "It is a condition of your use of the discussion groups that you do not: (X)" - meaning that if you do X then you may not be allowed to use the discussion groups. Are there any other parts of the TOU (...) (20 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
