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.