Free speech.

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006.

  1. I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
    idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).

    I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
    administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.

    If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:

    Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
    with the law in many countries !

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
    > I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
    > idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).
    >
    > I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
    > administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.
    >
    > If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:
    >
    > Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
    > with the law in many countries !


    Which newsgroup? You've posted to three different newsgroups.

    comp.lang.c doesn't have a formal charter (it predates newsgroup
    charters), but there is a general consensus about what's topical. I
    don't recall seeing you post anything here that would be considered
    topical.

    I'm not aware of any laws that require your ISP to enable you to post
    whatever you like to a Usenet newsgroup. (Many ISPs don't even
    provide Usenet access.) But regardless of any legal issues, simple
    politeness suggests that cross-posting off-topic material is a bad
    idea.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
    We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
     
    Keith Thompson, Jan 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <43ce60a0$0$719$>,
    Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
    >I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
    >idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).


    >Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
    >with the law in many countries !


    Is your local newspaper -required- to print any and all articles you
    submit to them? Is The Voice of America -required- to broadcast your 2
    hour discussion of why Brittany Spears is the best artist, "like,
    ever!"? Is CNN -required- to broadcast your home video of your dog
    chasing a stick? Is your city -required- to allow you to put on a "You
    can't trust {specific <ethnicity|religion|Santa Claus>}" parade?

    "Free speech" means *at most* that the government cannot stop you from
    expressing your views in such ways as will not cause undue disturbances
    (and there are "prior restraint" exceptions in -every- country that I
    have examined.)

    "Free speech" does NOT mean that anyone is obliged to provide you with
    a forum to express those views, particularily if doing so would cost
    them money. And "Free speech" does not mean that people cannot complain
    about your expression of your views, does not mean that a business
    or individual cannot require you leave for having expressed those views,
    and does not mean that [in serious cases] that you cannot be arrested for
    having expressed those views.

    In my country, "free speech" is a legal concept that applies to
    "public places" -- and Usenet is NOT a "public place" (ask yourself
    who owns the systems that Usenet groups travel over and get stored in.)


    The closest Usenet gets to "free speech" is to say that "If one of
    the Big 8 newsgroups doesn't want your opinion, then go start an alt.*
    newsgroup and see if anyone bothers to carry it." And if even an alt.*
    newsgroup doesn't fly then you could try for a free.* newsgroup --
    I hear that the total audience for those has risen to 19 people now.
    "Free speech" doesn't mean you can force anyone to -listen- to you.


    If you go around trying to cite "free speech" laws as overriding
    Usenet policies and customs, then you WILL lose the debate,
    because those laws are *always* full of limitations.

    Oh and you should examine your contract with your ISP before you go
    much further: your contract with them very likely gives them the right
    to drop your service for pretty much any reason they want, -including-
    (and possibly specifically written into the contract) violating Usenet
    norms.
    --
    Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
    been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes
     
    Walter Roberson, Jan 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Skybuck Flying

    Flash Gordon Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    > "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
    >> I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
    >> idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).


    It's nice to know that some ISPs take at least that much notice of
    complaints.

    >> I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
    >> administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.
    >>
    >> If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:


    News groups don't have administrators. These groups don't have
    moderators either.

    >> Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
    >> with the law in many countries !


    Which countries have laws saying that people are not allowed to complain
    to your ISP or that your ISP is not allowed to complain to you?

    > Which newsgroup? You've posted to three different newsgroups.
    >
    > comp.lang.c doesn't have a formal charter (it predates newsgroup
    > charters), but there is a general consensus about what's topical. I
    > don't recall seeing you post anything here that would be considered
    > topical.


    It also has a welcome message giving guidance on topicality which gets
    posted every so often. Links to various topicality guidlines for
    comp.lang.c can be found here
    http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Reading_And_Posting_To_comp.lang.c

    Anyway, if you want to invoke freedom of speech for your write to post
    here, then everyone else can invoke it for their write to complain about
    you posting off topic stuff here.

    > I'm not aware of any laws that require your ISP to enable you to post
    > whatever you like to a Usenet newsgroup. (Many ISPs don't even
    > provide Usenet access.) But regardless of any legal issues, simple
    > politeness suggests that cross-posting off-topic material is a bad
    > idea.


    Also the ISP probably has an AUP (Acceptable Usage Policy) which may
    well include restrictions on posting. Since there have been complaints
    posted to at least 1 of these groups about Skybuck Flying posting off
    topic rubbish with ridiculous cross posting, and s/he has continued
    anyway, the ISP will easily be able to see that his/her behaviour is not
    considered reasonable.

    The simple solution for Skybuck Flying to to post this stuff somewhere
    it won't be considered off topic. Then no one would complain. So you are
    free to "say" whatever you want as long as you do it in the right place.
    --
    Flash Gordon
    Living in interesting times.
    Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
     
    Flash Gordon, Jan 18, 2006
    #4
  5. Your ISP is a private company and has every legal right to allow or
    disallow anything they want. You have every right to tell them to kiss
    off and get another ISP. The term "free speech" applies to U.S. gov't
    regulations and limitations, not private companies.

    -Robert
     
    Robert M. Gary, Jan 18, 2006
    #5
  6. Robert M. Gary wrote:
    > Your ISP is a private company and has every legal right to allow or
    > disallow anything they want. You have every right to tell them to kiss
    > off and get another ISP. The term "free speech" applies to U.S. gov't
    > regulations and limitations, not private companies.


    And the US is not the only country in the world.

    --
    Dave K

    http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/

    Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
    It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
    for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. The month is
    always written in 3 letters (e.g. Jan, not January etc)
     
    Dave (from the UK), Jan 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Skybuck Flying

    Mark B Guest

    "Dave (from the UK)" <>
    wrote in message news:43ce7965@212.67.96.135...

    > And the US is not the only country in the world.


    Can you provide a citation to support this ludicrous claim?

    :)
     
    Mark B, Jan 18, 2006
    #7
  8. Skybuck Flying

    IchBin Guest

    Skybuck Flying wrote:
    > I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
    > idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).
    >
    > I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
    > administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.
    >
    > If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:
    >
    > Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
    > with the law in many countries !
    >
    > Bye,
    > Skybuck.
    >
    >

    Sine the ISP is In the drivers seat, so to speak. It maybe better to
    just communicate with them to find out the particulars. If you don't
    like them get another ISP.

    --

    Thanks in Advance...
    IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
    http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
    __________________________________________________________________________

    'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
    -William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)
     
    IchBin, Jan 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Nobody owns the entire internet and nobody owns a specific usenet newsgroup.

    It's as simple as that.

    The people running these news servers are allowed to connect to each other
    etc.

    As a matter of fact anybody can run a news server.

    If you do not like what I have to say I suggest you simply place me in your
    killfile ;) and make a nice splonk sound with it.

    Internet and usenet is as public as it can be.

    If you like to play mister dictator I have some nice advice for you:

    1. Move to china and embrace the great firewall.

    2. Start your own private internet and private usenet.

    I rest my case so to speak ;)

    Bye,
    Skybuck.

    "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:dqlqok$f9e$...
    > In article <43ce60a0$0$719$>,
    > Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
    > >I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting

    my
    > >idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).

    >
    > >Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in

    violation
    > >with the law in many countries !

    >
    > Is your local newspaper -required- to print any and all articles you
    > submit to them? Is The Voice of America -required- to broadcast your 2
    > hour discussion of why Brittany Spears is the best artist, "like,
    > ever!"? Is CNN -required- to broadcast your home video of your dog
    > chasing a stick? Is your city -required- to allow you to put on a "You
    > can't trust {specific <ethnicity|religion|Santa Claus>}" parade?
    >
    > "Free speech" means *at most* that the government cannot stop you from
    > expressing your views in such ways as will not cause undue disturbances
    > (and there are "prior restraint" exceptions in -every- country that I
    > have examined.)
    >
    > "Free speech" does NOT mean that anyone is obliged to provide you with
    > a forum to express those views, particularily if doing so would cost
    > them money. And "Free speech" does not mean that people cannot complain
    > about your expression of your views, does not mean that a business
    > or individual cannot require you leave for having expressed those views,
    > and does not mean that [in serious cases] that you cannot be arrested for
    > having expressed those views.
    >
    > In my country, "free speech" is a legal concept that applies to
    > "public places" -- and Usenet is NOT a "public place" (ask yourself
    > who owns the systems that Usenet groups travel over and get stored in.)
    >
    >
    > The closest Usenet gets to "free speech" is to say that "If one of
    > the Big 8 newsgroups doesn't want your opinion, then go start an alt.*
    > newsgroup and see if anyone bothers to carry it." And if even an alt.*
    > newsgroup doesn't fly then you could try for a free.* newsgroup --
    > I hear that the total audience for those has risen to 19 people now.
    > "Free speech" doesn't mean you can force anyone to -listen- to you.
    >
    >
    > If you go around trying to cite "free speech" laws as overriding
    > Usenet policies and customs, then you WILL lose the debate,
    > because those laws are *always* full of limitations.
    >
    > Oh and you should examine your contract with your ISP before you go
    > much further: your contract with them very likely gives them the right
    > to drop your service for pretty much any reason they want, -including-
    > (and possibly specifically written into the contract) violating Usenet
    > norms.
    > --
    > Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
    > been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes
     
    Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006
    #9
  10. "Gavin Deane" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
    > > Victor Bazarov wrote:
    > > > Dave (from the UK) wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>> Purpose of comp.lang.c++
    > > >>>
    > > >>> http://www.parashift.com/c -faq-lite/how-to-post.html
    > > >>
    > > >> I could write my own. What makes that more authorative than mine?
    > > >
    > > > Public acceptance of it as such. Go ahead, write your own and we will

    > >
    > > Who are "we" - the International Police Force?

    >
    > No. The community within the newsgroup, without whose acceptance no
    > suggested change to the nature of the group would succeed.
    >
    > > > examine it and tell you (and everybody) whether what you wrote is more
    > > > "authorative", less "authorative", or the same.

    > >
    > > Perhaps I would not care!

    >
    > If you violate the terms of your contract with your ISP, perhaps you
    > might care.


    I have not violated any terms, so you can sent abuses all you want.

    >
    > If your actions go against widely accepted netiquette conventions and
    > you don't care, that might say something about you.


    The netiquette does not require a user to agree or accept your charters.

    I have a contract with my ISP which mentions the netiquette.

    I have no contract with these newsgroups what so ever.

    So you can go sent abuses all you want.

    It's a nice educational exercise for the ISP's workforce and their own
    rules/contracts.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Skybuck Flying

    Flash Gordon Guest

    Skybuck Flying wrote:
    > Nobody owns the entire internet and nobody owns a specific usenet newsgroup.


    <snip>

    No one has claimed to, and people still have have the option of
    reporting you to your ISP when you deliberately post off topic rubbish
    since you have been informed here that is is unacceptable and also now
    by your ISP. So if you want to avoid future complaints just don't post
    off topic rubbish and don't engage in stupid cross posting.

    Oh, and I realise that your top posting was a deliberate attempt to annoy.
    --
    Flash Gordon
    Living in interesting times.
    Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.
     
    Flash Gordon, Jan 18, 2006
    #11
  12. In article <43ce997f$0$726$>,
    Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
    >Nobody owns the entire internet and nobody owns a specific usenet newsgroup.


    Correct.

    >It's as simple as that.


    >The people running these news servers are allowed to connect to each other
    >etc.


    Generally true, but that is subject to local law.

    >As a matter of fact anybody can run a news server.


    You can -run- a news server, but [except by specific contract] you
    cannot force anyone to accept any particular message from that
    news server.

    Owning the equipment that gives you the capacity to do something does
    not mean that you have a right in law to do it. Try telephoning the
    office of the queen and making some threatening noises, and then see
    whether you can get the courts to agree that you have a free speech
    right to have done so. After all, you are "allowed to connect to
    each other" by the telephone that you own and run, right?


    >Internet and usenet is as public as it can be.


    You invoked law in this matter, expressing a view that newsgroup
    policies against saying whatever you wanted probably violated the
    laws of many countries. Unless you choose to modify that
    prior statement, then we get into the question of what "public"
    means IN LAW. I assure you that IN LAW in Canada, USA, UK, and as far
    as the EU is concerned, the internet and Usenet are NOT "public",
    they are private cooperations.

    If someone chooses not to cooperate with the social norms, then each
    entity that is part of that informal cooperative may make a fuss and
    request that the non-cooperative person be cut off; whether any action
    is taken in response is up to the local law and policies and contracts
    of the access provider.

    -Most- access providers in G8 countries will indeed take -some- action in
    response to complaints that have merit. That's because they know that
    if they don't play nice, that no-one is obliged to play nice with
    them. Providers that continually allow violation of the social norms
    find themselves put on blacklists and find that email messages
    and packets stop getting through. The mechanism that has evolved
    within Usenet is the UDP, "Usenet Death Penalty", in which a number
    of sites band together and block all Usenet traffic to and from the
    uncooperative host. UDP has seldom been used, but when has been used,
    it has usually been -very- effective, with few sites holding out
    more than 48 hours before agreeing to mend their ways.


    >2. Start your own private internet and private usenet.


    Internet and Usenet are *already* private, not public.


    >If you like to play mister dictator I have some nice advice for you:


    You implicitly threatened legal action against people who complained
    about your postings; you should not be surprised that people
    have pointed out that your legal claims are without merit.

    When you say, "I have a legal right to do X if I want to", and someone
    replies saying, "No you don't" and explaining some of the facts of the
    law, the replier is not being a dictator: the replier is being
    an *educator*.
    --
    Okay, buzzwords only. Two syllables, tops. -- Laurie Anderson
     
    Walter Roberson, Jan 18, 2006
    #12
  13. "Walter Roberson" <-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
    news:dqmars$6jh$...
    > In article <43ce997f$0$726$>,
    > Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
    > >Nobody owns the entire internet and nobody owns a specific usenet

    newsgroup.
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > >It's as simple as that.

    >
    > >The people running these news servers are allowed to connect to each

    other
    > >etc.

    >
    > Generally true, but that is subject to local law.
    >
    > >As a matter of fact anybody can run a news server.

    >
    > You can -run- a news server, but [except by specific contract] you
    > cannot force anyone to accept any particular message from that
    > news server.
    >
    > Owning the equipment that gives you the capacity to do something does
    > not mean that you have a right in law to do it. Try telephoning the
    > office of the queen and making some threatening noises, and then see
    > whether you can get the courts to agree that you have a free speech
    > right to have done so. After all, you are "allowed to connect to
    > each other" by the telephone that you own and run, right?
    >
    >
    > >Internet and usenet is as public as it can be.

    >
    > You invoked law in this matter, expressing a view that newsgroup
    > policies against saying whatever you wanted probably violated the
    > laws of many countries. Unless you choose to modify that
    > prior statement, then we get into the question of what "public"
    > means IN LAW. I assure you that IN LAW in Canada, USA, UK, and as far
    > as the EU is concerned, the internet and Usenet are NOT "public",
    > they are private cooperations.
    >
    > If someone chooses not to cooperate with the social norms, then each
    > entity that is part of that informal cooperative may make a fuss and
    > request that the non-cooperative person be cut off; whether any action
    > is taken in response is up to the local law and policies and contracts
    > of the access provider.
    >
    > -Most- access providers in G8 countries will indeed take -some- action in
    > response to complaints that have merit. That's because they know that
    > if they don't play nice, that no-one is obliged to play nice with
    > them. Providers that continually allow violation of the social norms
    > find themselves put on blacklists and find that email messages
    > and packets stop getting through. The mechanism that has evolved
    > within Usenet is the UDP, "Usenet Death Penalty", in which a number
    > of sites band together and block all Usenet traffic to and from the
    > uncooperative host. UDP has seldom been used, but when has been used,
    > it has usually been -very- effective, with few sites holding out
    > more than 48 hours before agreeing to mend their ways.
    >
    >
    > >2. Start your own private internet and private usenet.

    >
    > Internet and Usenet are *already* private, not public.
    >
    >
    > >If you like to play mister dictator I have some nice advice for you:

    >
    > You implicitly threatened legal action against people who complained
    > about your postings; you should not be surprised that people
    > have pointed out that your legal claims are without merit.
    >
    > When you say, "I have a legal right to do X if I want to", and someone
    > replies saying, "No you don't" and explaining some of the facts of the
    > law, the replier is not being a dictator: the replier is being
    > an *educator*.


    Your education sucked with malformed examples.

    However you did point out that free speech is only about the goverment etc.

    Bye,
    Skybuck.
     
    Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Personally, I do not use my ISP for news groups. I bought a wholesale
    newsgroup subscription for $8/month from giganews. I can also download
    in-theatre movies that my ISP blocks.

    -Robert
     
    Robert M. Gary, Jan 18, 2006
    #14
  15. How does that related to this discussion?

    -Robert
     
    Robert M. Gary, Jan 18, 2006
    #15
  16. On 18 Jan 2006 15:14:31 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "Robert M. Gary"
    <> wrote:

    >How does that related to this discussion?


    How does what relate to what discussion?

    Please read this, before posting again.
    --
    Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
    Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
    header.

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Mark McIntyre, Jan 18, 2006
    #16
  17. On 18 Jan 2006 15:14:31 -0800, in comp.lang.c , "Robert M. Gary"
    <> wrote:

    >How does that related to this discussion?


    Perhaps the point is that usenet is available to the 80% of humans who
    do not live in the USA. Therefore whatever free speech laws may or may
    not apply in the US, are pretty bloody irrelevant.
    Mark McIntyre
    --

    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    Mark McIntyre, Jan 18, 2006
    #17
  18. Skybuck Flying

    Guest

    Robert M. Gary wrote:
    > How does that related to this discussion?
    >


    It is related beause Robery M. Gary (you) said:

    > The term "free speech" applies to U.S. gov't
    > regulations and limitations, not private companies.


    Hence Dave's reply:

    > And the US is not the only country in the world.


    Unfortunately you don't quote properly so your post lost all context
    (luckily I was using google so I can see the context). This is why not
    quoting is bad.

    BTW, dave was saying, between the lines:

    > The term "free speech" applies to gov't regulations and
    > limitations, not private companies.
     
    , Jan 18, 2006
    #18
  19. You might want to invest in a modern news reader. I"m sure people who
    read news on a teletype have a hard time. However, those of us with
    20th century news readers appreciate not having to see the same post
    quoted over and over again when its visiable right above the referenced
    post graphically.

    -Robert
     
    Robert M. Gary, Jan 19, 2006
    #19
  20. The poster is in the U.S. using a U.S. ISP. Remind me again how 80% of
    the world not in the U.S. is related to this discussion.

    -Robert
     
    Robert M. Gary, Jan 19, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Skybuck Flying

    Free speech.

    Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    88
    Views:
    2,120
  2. Skybuck Flying

    Free speech.

    Skybuck Flying, Jan 18, 2006, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    107
    Views:
    2,164
    Chris Hills
    Jan 24, 2006
  3. george
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,204
    george
    Aug 29, 2008
  4. focode

    free speech api

    focode, Nov 21, 2008, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    540
    Andrew Thompson
    Nov 21, 2008
  5. mohammed_a_o
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
    mohammed_a_o
    Nov 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page