For what little it is worth we are talking about by subscription mailing
lists not newspapers or newsgroups.  At the same time it should be
recognized that newspapers are under no obligation to publish "Letters to
the Editor."

The right to protest continues but so do your 'owner rights.'  The only
question is the 'guff' an owner is prepared to take if he/she attempts to
hold subscribers to the topic or insist on some degree of adherence to
NETIQUETTE.  On top of this is all the distasteful band width that will be
inflicted on the other subscribers by the 'flamers.'

There is no easy answer.  The larger the list, the greater the problem.

As always the 2% rule applies.

Ed





At 09:35 AM 8/28/1997 EDT, C wrote:
>I recently set a flamer's subscription to the review option.  He got
>a friend to send a diatribe to the list, claiming that he was being
>censored.  I then explained that the review option merely allowed
>me to screen his messages for flames and to either send it on to the
>list or return it for the author to remove the flames.  yada yada.
>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?
>
>Thanks!
>Trista
>
>====================the message about prior restraint=================
>
>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
>
>