Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:51:34 -0400 |
MIME-version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Content-type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-transfer-encoding: |
7BIT |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 9:35 AM -0400 8/28/97, C wrote:
>At any rate, I now have someone complaining that this amounts to
>"prior restraint" (see the message at the end).
>
>Soooo, does anyone have responses, suggestions, explanations?
Yes--
This is what you're being told:
>If I remember my "Law 101" from college, the correct term for this is prior
>restraint and would be illegal if this was a newspaper. It is also something
>that liberals usually (and correctly) scream and hollar about. What gives?
>
>JD
This guy knows nothing whatsoever about law. It would be -completely-
legal if it were a newspaper. If you are the list owner, you decide
policies, and you decide what is and is not appropriate on the list. If
anyone has a problem with this, they can go to another list, or start one
of their own. It's not your problem. There is no aspect of law to this.
If you own a magazine you are not obligated to print every (or any) letter
which is sent to it. If you own a house, you are not obligated to display
posters that others what you to display in your window. You are not
obligated to post any material to a list which you feel is inappropriate,
period.
--Julie
--
[log in to unmask] http://drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu/~julie/
"I do not impersonate women. How many women do you know who march around in
7-inch heels, 3-foot wigs and skin-tight outfits? Women don't wear that,
_drag queens_ wear that! The public persona of RuPaul is just a fabulous,
eye-popping celebrity package designed to work well in front of the camera."
--RuPaul to Chicago's BLACKlines.
|
|
|