Kathleen Bruce <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>This person is known for sueing.  My question is this. Can a listowner be
>sued for restricting someone's access to a public list? In this case, the
>listowner lives in a different country than the person who is the aggravator.

The trouble with mailing lists is many people assume they are like
newsgroups, free and open to the public.  In most cases they are not. On
the other hand, if members paid directly or indirectly for their
membership, they may have recourse, it would depend on the terms of the
agreement you made with them.  I suppose my mailing list is semi-public:
anyone can join but I reserve the right to determine who stays.

>Have you all dealt with this before? If so, any suggestions, to the list and
>to me privately, would be of great help.  I feel threatened, and do not know
>what is best to do in this situation.  As of this date, both parties have
>told me that they are considering legal action, ....( one against the other
>for her public redressing, and the other towards me and my co owner for
>restricting her access to the list, should we decide to do that.)

Having just survived a big feud, I can sympathize with your problem.  I
naively thought everyone would be polite and considerate but have had to
face the facts.  A fellow list member with four years of list experience
gave me some good advice and helped me set the list up as "administered."
Which is not to be confused with "moderated": members are free to post
what they like with only four restrictions, messages are sent to the
membership without our having to approve them. There are three
administrators who make all the important decisions.  We published our
rules in a message and added them to our Welcome file.  All new members
are required to read them.

There is no public dressing down or hand slapping, no emotional
involvement (at least publicly) on the part of the administrators. When a
member breaks a rule the administrators vote on whether to send an
official warning via private email, two votes are required for removal.
Of course there are borderline remarks, in which case any administrator
is free to send a private "nudge" to the offender.  The official warning
specifies what rule was broken and quotes the offender's message.  We
have had to send only one warning so far.  I can see a point where both
parties in a feud would have to be removed so that list business could
continue.  And I'd say good riddance!  Troublemakers are not worth
keeping around.

Here is a laundered example of the official warning I sent this week, I
haven't heard a peep from the offender:

======================================================
Subject: PARLET-L Official Warning
Date:    Sat, 13 Dec 1997 23:55:30 EST
To: Joe B. Name <[log in to unmask]>

The message you posted yesterday to The Parrotlet List violated list
rules. It was a blatant troll and came very close to violating the other
three restrictions:

1. You are not allowed to curse, use graphic language, or discuss
non-avian sexuality - there may be children on this list, and we want
this to be a safe place for them.
2. You are not allowed to discuss non-bird topics that are sure to invite
controversy - such as sex, politics or religion.
3. You are not allowed to flame or troll.
4. You are not allowed to attack individual list members.

This is an official warning.  There will be no second warning -- if you
persist, you will be removed from the list. If you cannot abide by basic
rules of netiquette, please leave the list now.

Signed:

Mike Warren <[log in to unmask]>
Laura Name <[log in to unmask]>
Pat Name <[log in to unmask]>


--------------------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 12 Dec 1997 23:55:30 EST
From: <snip>
Subject:      Re: Digest 12/12/97


In a message dated 97-12-12 21:59:25 EST, you write:

> -----------------------------------------

/snip big time/

==============================================

When the new rules were first posted we lost several members who thought
their freedom of speech had been threatened.  So far, no lawyers have
come knocking on my door and I haven't heard from the ACLU <g>

Thanks for listening.  I am still new to this business and a little
unsure.  I'd appreciate any feedback you can offer.


---
Mike Warren               <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sine Nomine Farm          <http://www.netunlimited.net/~mwarren>
Tobaccoville, NC