Re: NATHAN and the FAQ Dilemna

[swhite@inter.die.spam.die.access.com (Steve White)]

In article <619d3i$lt3$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>,
pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Paul Francis Gilbert) wrote:

> ... What you don't actually have is the right to discriminate 
> against people that want to access your site. It would be legal 
> for to block access if you were providing it as a paying service... 
>ie. people getting what they pay for. But since you're making it
> publically available on your website, everyone has the *Right* to
> access it. To block access to certain people is discrimination,
> and illegal in at least the US [probably a civil offense,
> although I'm no lawyer].


Er, no, actually in the U.S., a person is completely within his/her rights
to determine access to a web site, etc., that they own, based on any
criteria they wish. It doesn't matter whether it is for profit or not.
This has limits: one can't violate basic civil rights, such as those based
on race, sex, etc. In addition, if one has contracted for web / FTP space
from an ISP, one might have certain contractual obligations based on their
terms of service.

Not sure how it works in Austraila, but then, Nathan's site is in the U.S.

So perhaps we could tone down all the rhetoric about "discrimination" and
"illegality."





steve




"from" line above changed to defeat e-mail spammers.
You figure it out.