Re: attack of a usenet crybaby

[garyg@unity.sj.unisys.com (Gary Greene)]

rgshacke@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (Randy Shackelford) writes:

>There is a whiner on comp.sys.apple2 threatening to invoke some "usenet terms
>of agreement" thing to try to kick off people who use language to which he
>objects. I can't imagine that such a thing can be done. How about it?
>--
>Randy Shackelford
>rgshacke@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu

Some private service providers require that their users sign such a
document in order to protect the provider from liability in the event of
real abuse:  break the rules, lose your account.  There are accepted 
use and practice guidelines but they have no force in law unless you sign
them as a contract for services, or unless there is an implied contract a
court will recognize.  However some other things do have force of law 
(abusive and harassing e-mail is prohibited under a variety of Federal 
and State statutes).  So in practice most providers are very quick to quash 
such conduct by their users if it verges on the truly objectionable.  

Educational sites almost always have a policy that formally defines what 
they will treat as objectionable behavior on the net.  You are party to
that contract by virtue of being enrolled or employed.  Incivility generally 
doesn't count unless it really escapes the bounds.  Most often a hold is 
placed first on the account while the objection is investigated.  If the 
user appears guilty based on existing traffic found in the local database 
or in the backups then a penalty will result depending on the severity of 
the offense.  An immature user will usually be warned for a first offense 
and suspended for a subsequent repeat.  Sometimes the user will lose their 
access from that site permanently on a second offense, but I think most 
sites only suspend for a period of time.  A third such offense is net death 
at that site in most every case where a use policy is in place.  Some things 
rate net death on a first offense.

In the event that the user you cite can show that the language they object 
to is abusive of people because of race, gender, nationality, religion,
creed, orientation, or previous condition, etc., there is a solid chance 
they *can* invoke such a penalty from the offender's system administrator 
at 99% of all sites.  I have personally obtained the permanent suspension 
of one person's account for sending mass-mail to people in a recovery group 
that told them to kill themselves.  Some sorts of idiocy, no matter how 
sophmoric, should not and do not have to be endured.

I do not know how you are involved in this so please do not take my
comments as a directed at you, though your comment seems to imply the
person you cite is objecting to you.  Even if you are the person they are
objecting to, this does not make them right.  Only you know the
particulars.  However if you are the person, even if you are within the
legal bounds, remember that a flame may be satisfying in the short run but
civil discourse is more effective.


Respects,

Gary Greene
Santa Clara, California			garyg@netcom.com (at home)