Re: NATHAN and the FAQ Dilemna

[pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

jeffr@bnr.ca (Jeffrey Robertson) writes:

>In article <619cn9$lin$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
>Paul Francis Gilbert <pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> wrote:
>>
>>Not to mention that you're at least breaking US law, and probably the laws of
>>many other countries as well. As was previous pointed out, putting information
>>on a web page is considered to be 'publishing' it. Under the law, a
>>publisher does not have the right to discriminate against people. 
>>He/she/it [;-)] can either make the information available to everyone or
>>no-one. Anywhere inbetween is discrimination, cut and dried and is breaking
>>the law. 

>Nonsense.  Many WWW pages exist to support paying customers.
>(eg, software packages, pornography, etc.) They restrict
>access based on various criteria.  I don't see why an "enemies list"
>would be considered any different in the eyes of the law.

Yes, but there's a subtle difference, as I think I mentioned in one posting.
Such services are commercial... they give you what you pay/register for.
It would be illegal for them to, say, refuse to allow black people or
homosexuals access to the site.

In this case, we're talking about publically available information, [and
I won't go back into the argument that as a FAQ maintainer he has an
obligation to have it publically available], it is violating the law that
he is restricting access to the information because of personal 
discrimination (ie. against Turley).

Actually, the laws are bit murkier than that. I know that in some cases
selection is allowed... such as publishing a different version for certain
countries (eg. a book maker could write a special variant of his book and
specify that only it, rather than the main book, could be sold in a certain
country). But in this case we have the "Net" (which lawyers and politicians
the world over are still trying to come to grips with), so you really 
need a law degree to determine which laws are having affect.

Remember the recent American decency act that was stopped? As my 
understanding of it is, the law was going to say that if any American
minor downloaded objectional information from your site, you could be
sued, even if you and your site weren't even in America. Go figure.

Anyway, back to the original point, your counterexample really isn't
about the same thing, I feel.


>-- 
>-------------------------------------+-----------------+-------------------
>Jeffrey Robertson                    | jeffr@nortel.ca |   N  O  R  T  E  L
>Software Engineer                    +-----------------+   Northern Telecom
>"I speak for myself, not Nortel" - Me                    Broadband Networks
--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 4, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.