Re: Internet Advertiser's Blacklist

Albert Lunde (Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu)
Wed, 14 Dec 1994 11:40:05 -0800

>
> On Wed, 14 Dec 1994, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > [Moderator's note: I have some trepidation about this information. However,
> > I believe it is critical for the members of this list to be fully informed
> > about such an endeavor, whether the endeavor is reasonable, enforceable,
> > legal, or practical. Therefore, in the spirit of free information, I have
> > forwarded most of this post to the list, with the poster taking full
> > responsibility for its contents. The poster asks for discussion to follow
> > in alt.internet.services, where this topic is being heatedly discussed as
> > we speak. I will post some responses within reason to this list--GF]
>
> Short reply: If our name was found on that list, we'd sue. We'd sue
> each and every system associated with it. This is rank vigilantism of
> self-appointed gnomes who presume to dictate someones else's rights --
> the rights they claim for themselves. We'd sue.

Perhaps equally to the point, the really effective actions against
offending sites in the past do not seem to have arisen from some
central coodination but from discussion among people on USENET.

I do think "vigilantism" by "self-appointed" actors has an ethical
role to play on the net. An unmoderated, largely unregulated forum
is _only_ going to be policed by "self-appointed" net.cops.

All the USENET FAQs for unmoderated groups are written by
self-appointed authors.

The reason that, say, the cancel bombers going after Canter & Seigel,
are allowed to continue, is that they are acting in a way that
reflects some sort of community consensus, even if on their
own initiative.

Right now, I'm more afraid of annoying sysadmins than legal action
(civil or criminal) -- the law is having trouble dealing with
the nets in a realistic and useful way.

--
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu