Here's a good way to deal with problems of "censorship":

I have been on both sides of that.  I have been singled out and
banned from a list, along with others on the list, for disagreeing
with the listowner -- off list -- banned on technicalities other
people aren't banned on.  While listowners are indeed all-powerful,
the fact is that those who already have free lists and USENET berths
have a type of media monopoly power, and it is ethically wrong for
them to use it for their own political gain.  But there is no
recourse for that on Internet.

So -- I don't think the "listowner owns it and can do whatever
he/she wants" is necessarily the best answer.

OTOH, I am a listowner myself and have had to deal with people who
just won't stop flaming (and our disease can affect a person that
way anyway).

I don't use NOPOST (well, haven't yet) -- I use "review", as you
have -- so at least the person still has a voice on the list!
And only once in nearly a year and a half had I had to ban someone
from a list.

But -- the problem is, you don't really WANT to commit actual
"censorship" -- or more to the point, as they say with politicians,
you want the APPEARANCE of being fair, as well as to ACTUALLY
be fair.

It doesn't matter that you have a "right" as a listowner to do
whatever you want -- the list runs much better if everybody feels
that they understand things and that you won't behave arbitrarily.

The solution is an appeals committee.  Or ombudsman committee.
Or administrative committee.

That way, instead of it being a personal "thing" with the problem
posters, it is something that truly is "in the interest of the list".
You can say to the list -- if you want to express an opinion on this,
write to xxxxxxx (not to the list).  I've found you can talk about
setting people to review in the abstract on the list (though I have
been on lists where they won't even discuss THAT) -- but if you
talk about a specific person or incident on the list, then it is
very difficult to keep it from descending into personal insults and
defensiveness.

I asked for volunteers, and it was people I already knew, and we
told the list who was in the group and asked if there were objections,
and it's fine.  I have found it is really quite a relief to step
BACK and let the committee handle problems.  I have a vote on the
committee.  But it's just a vote.  And I have been outvoted (on
the moderated list) on whether to post something or not.  So it's
been posted.

It was, BTW, the request for such a committee that got the bunch
of us kicked off ONE list, and then technicalities were used to
kick us off the listowner's OTHER list.

At any rate, on my lists, the three cases of "review" and the one
case of banning were the result of a vote by the list administrators,
not a single decision by me.

Because you don't really want to be an OWNER, you want to be a
facilitator.  You are not doing this for your personal gain (I
would imagine) but as a community service.  People tend to forget
that.  If you give the community some control over what really
should be THEIR list, then they will enforce the rules and feel
much more satisfied about how the list is run.

--
Mary Schweitzer <[log in to unmask]>
Listowner, "Sasyfras" (for discussion about CFIDS, fibromyalgia,
   related illnesses): [log in to unmask]
Co-Chair, Steering Committee, WECAN, Inc. (Worldwide Electronic
   CFIDS/M.E. Action Network)
   http://www.community-care.org.uk/wecan/
URL: http://pw1.netcom.com/~schweit2/home.html