Hello Nicholas,

Nicholas Loch -> Lee Lofaso expressed precisely :

 >> Also, a word of note.  Some folks get "freedom of speech" and
 >> "freedom of the press" confused.  The two terms are not
synonymous.
 >> The First Amendment of the US Constitution states four freedoms -

 >> 1. Religion
 >> 2. Freedom of Speech and of the Press
 >> 3. The Right to Peaceably Assemble
 >> 4. The Right to Petition the Government for Redress (correction)
 >>   of Grievances

 >> All of these rights concern freedom of the mind and conscience.

 >> Let's see what you can come up with in regards to Fidonews (and/or
 >> other echos) and Fidonet.  All are welcome to chime in as well with
 >> their own thoughts.

NL>I'll chime in....

The sound of many chimes...

NL>
 NL> I am not familiar with any ownership rights that FidoNet may have (guess I
 NL> need to read the docs again), however freedom of speech is not a right on
 NL> Fidonet or any other public but privately owned computer network.  Example:
 NL> I run a BBS, it is a public forum, however it belongs to me and I dictate
 NL> policy.. Same thing goes when posting messages on any website..the websites
 NL> owner decides what language is allowed and who is allowed to view or post on
 NL> it.  My BBS is part of the FidoNet network, I agreed when I signed up to
 NL> follow the policies as set forth by the FidoNet administration and as such
 NL> the users of my BBS are bound by that same agreement.  Bottom line...
 NL> Freedom of speech is not guaranteed on the private property of others...be
 NL> it their backyard or thier computer network forums.

That would be nice if all FidoNet administrators/sysops were to abide
by the very policies they expect everybody else to.  Most notably P4.
However, certain administrators and sysops have chosen to ignore P4,
treating the document as nothing more than a "goddamn piece of paper"
- thus placing themselves "above the fidolaw".

You mentioned "ownership rights".  Here is my view -

Ownership of FidoNet is (and should remain) in the hands of the entire
fidonet community - sysops and non-sysops alike.  FidoNet was created
by sysops, and administered by sysops, as it should be.  Because those
very sysops who created FidoNet also invited non-sysops to participate,
those sysops (as well as those sysops who joined FidoNet afterwards)
have welcomed all as being part of the fidonet community.

Now for my opinion on freedom of speech, in regards to FidoNet -

Note - sysops have absolute right over their own system/computer.
That is a different issue.  After all, sysops can choose to invite
others, or choose not to invite others, to use their system.

The term "freedom of speech" is a relative right, not an absolute
right.  However, it is not discriminatory, with some having more rights
than others.  IOW, all within the group have the same rights.  But can
differ from echo to echo.  For example -

* Technical echoes require strict rules in order for discussions to remain on topic.
* General chat echoes need only a very loose set of rules, as topics
can vary greatly.
* Designated flame echoes have no rules, as there can be no such thing
as a flame echo with rules (contradiction of terms).

There are differences between fidonet echoes and newsgroups or usenet -

A fidonet echo has a moderator, who posts a set of rules for that
echo.  Or in the case of designated flame echoes, no set of rules.
Participants and lurkers are invited, and all are welcome to send
and receive messages without having to ask for prior permission
from the moderator.  Messages are posted for all to see, uncensored
by the moderator.

A newsgroup has a moderator who pre-selects who can and cannot send
and/or receive messages in the forum.  In order to participate, an
individual has to "subscribe" to the newsgroup and get permission from
the moderator to post messages.  Messages can also be deleted by the
moderator before they are actually posted to the group.

 LL>> Could be an interesting thread.  ;)

NL>
 NL> I'm sure someone is going to disagree....

In FidoNet?  You gotta be kiddin' me.  :)

 NL> and they do have the right to do so...

According to some, it is "my way or the highway."

 NL> but, if the Moderator says to cease, we cease.

Some do.  Others don't.

 NL> We've all agreed to FidoNet's policy.

Just because all sysops agreed to abide by FidoNet's policy (P4)
does not mean that all sysops actually abide by that policy.

 NL> Through our use of this system alone, whether we've read
 NL> the rule or not, we agree to abide by the rules as set forth in the FidoNet
 NL> policy4 document..

In order to own a node, a sysop must agree to abide by P4.
However, some sysops have chosen to ignore P4.  And that means,
according to P4, those sysops no longer own a valid node.
Automatic excommunication is the term used in P4.

 NL> Do you agree?

Some sysops believe in P4, just as some folks believe in the
US Constitution.  But what happens when sysops no longer believe
in P4, or when folks no longer believe in the US Constitution?
The document is no longer relevant, and becomes meaningless.
"Just a goddamn piece of paper", as a former president is
alleged to have said.

 NL> That's just my 2 cents...You can keep the Change!

Why are pennies still being made?  It costs more than a penny
to make a penny.  So what is the logic?  And what the heck can
you buy with a penny, anyway?

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb