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.