NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/4755

Text File | 1992-07-22 | 2.0 KB | 42 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!ftpbox!mothost!lmpsbbs!areaplg2.corp.mot.com!bhv
From: [e-mail] (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Policies for LISTSERV lists ?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:09:56 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37
Lines: 29

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
)Can anyone email me the policies/guidelines applicable to LISTSERV
)lists, please ?
)
)I subscribe to one such list and its anonymous editorial board have
)refused to include one of my contributions without offereing any
)explanations or justification.  And my contribution was relevant,
)unoffensive and unabusive (REALLY ! :-).  At least three other
)contributors have suffered the same fate.  Presumably, LISTSERV,
)the University and the Computing dept (from where the list originates)
)ought to be concerned and have a rightful say ?  Or are LISTSERV lists
)allowed to be completely owned by anonymous people acting arbitrarily ?

An interesting question.  Some people argue that newsgroups are 'limited
public forums'.  If this is in fact true (it hasn't really been tested),
it seems to me from the reading that I've done that there *is* a legal
obligation for fair moderation.  A college newspaper, "The Royal Purple"
was held to be required to run a paid advertisement because of their status
as a limited public forum, wheras a commercial paper, the Chicago
Tribune, was not (the "Amalmagated Clothing Workers v Chicago Tribune").  In
both cases, there were legitimate complaints that only one side of an issue
was being presented, though in the Royal Purple case the paper ran at least
part of the advertisement as an editorial.

If this observation is true, it puts moderators of moderated newsgroups in a
rather uncertain legal position, IMO.

This is, of course, not legal advice.....