«

I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).

I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.

If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:

Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
with the law in many countries !

Bye,
Skybuck.

"Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
> I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
> idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).
>
> I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
> administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.
>
> If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:
>
> Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
> with the law in many countries !

Which newsgroup? You've posted to three different newsgroups.

comp.lang.c doesn't have a formal charter (it predates newsgroup
charters), but there is a general consensus about what's topical. I
don't recall seeing you post anything here that would be considered
topical.

I'm not aware of any laws that require your ISP to enable you to post
whatever you like to a Usenet newsgroup. (Many ISPs don't even
provide Usenet access.) But regardless of any legal issues, simple
politeness suggests that cross-posting off-topic material is a bad
idea.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

In article <43ce60a0$0$719$ >,
Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
>I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
>idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).

>Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
>with the law in many countries !

Is your local newspaper -required- to print any and all articles you
submit to them? Is The Voice of America -required- to broadcast your 2
hour discussion of why Brittany Spears is the best artist, "like,
ever!"? Is CNN -required- to broadcast your home video of your dog
chasing a stick? Is your city -required- to allow you to put on a "You
can't trust {specific <ethnicity|religion|Santa Claus>}" parade?

"Free speech" means *at most* that the government cannot stop you from
expressing your views in such ways as will not cause undue disturbances
(and there are "prior restraint" exceptions in -every- country that I
have examined.)

"Free speech" does NOT mean that anyone is obliged to provide you with
a forum to express those views, particularily if doing so would cost
them money. And "Free speech" does not mean that people cannot complain
about your expression of your views, does not mean that a business
or individual cannot require you leave for having expressed those views,
and does not mean that [in serious cases] that you cannot be arrested for
having expressed those views.

In my country, "free speech" is a legal concept that applies to
"public places" -- and Usenet is NOT a "public place" (ask yourself
who owns the systems that Usenet groups travel over and get stored in.)


The closest Usenet gets to "free speech" is to say that "If one of
the Big 8 newsgroups doesn't want your opinion, then go start an alt.*
newsgroup and see if anyone bothers to carry it." And if even an alt.*
newsgroup doesn't fly then you could try for a free.* newsgroup --
I hear that the total audience for those has risen to 19 people now.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can force anyone to -listen- to you.


If you go around trying to cite "free speech" laws as overriding
Usenet policies and customs, then you WILL lose the debate,
because those laws are *always* full of limitations.

Oh and you should examine your contract with your ISP before you go
much further: your contract with them very likely gives them the right
to drop your service for pretty much any reason they want, -including-
(and possibly specifically written into the contract) violating Usenet
norms.
--
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes

Keith Thompson wrote:
> "Skybuck Flying" <> writes:
>> I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
>> idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).

It's nice to know that some ISPs take at least that much notice of
complaints.

>> I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
>> administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.
>>
>> If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:

News groups don't have administrators. These groups don't have
moderators either.

>> Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
>> with the law in many countries !

Which countries have laws saying that people are not allowed to complain
to your ISP or that your ISP is not allowed to complain to you?

> Which newsgroup? You've posted to three different newsgroups.
>
> comp.lang.c doesn't have a formal charter (it predates newsgroup
> charters), but there is a general consensus about what's topical. I
> don't recall seeing you post anything here that would be considered
> topical.

It also has a welcome message giving guidance on topicality which gets
posted every so often. Links to various topicality guidlines for
comp.lang.c can be found here
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Reading_And...To_comp.lang.c

Anyway, if you want to invoke freedom of speech for your write to post
here, then everyone else can invoke it for their write to complain about
you posting off topic stuff here.

> I'm not aware of any laws that require your ISP to enable you to post
> whatever you like to a Usenet newsgroup. (Many ISPs don't even
> provide Usenet access.) But regardless of any legal issues, simple
> politeness suggests that cross-posting off-topic material is a bad
> idea.

Also the ISP probably has an AUP (Acceptable Usage Policy) which may
well include restrictions on posting. Since there have been complaints
posted to at least 1 of these groups about Skybuck Flying posting off
topic rubbish with ridiculous cross posting, and s/he has continued
anyway, the ISP will easily be able to see that his/her behaviour is not
considered reasonable.

The simple solution for Skybuck Flying to to post this stuff somewhere
it won't be considered off topic. Then no one would complain. So you are
free to "say" whatever you want as long as you do it in the right place.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

Your ISP is a private company and has every legal right to allow or
disallow anything they want. You have every right to tell them to kiss
off and get another ISP. The term "free speech" applies to U.S. gov't
regulations and limitations, not private companies.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Your ISP is a private company and has every legal right to allow or
> disallow anything they want. You have every right to tell them to kiss
> off and get another ISP. The term "free speech" applies to U.S. gov't
> regulations and limitations, not private companies.

And the US is not the only country in the world.

--
Dave K

http://www.southminster-branch-line.org.uk/

Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: month-year@domain. Hitting reply will work
for a couple of months only. Later set it manually. The month is
always written in 3 letters (e.g. Jan, not January etc)

"Dave (from the UK)" <see-my->
wrote in message news:43ce7965@212.67.96.135...

> And the US is not the only country in the world.

Can you provide a citation to support this ludicrous claim?

Skybuck Flying wrote:
> I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting my
> idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).
>
> I am not certain if it was a complaint from a prankster or from the
> administrators of this newsgroup or one of these newsgroups.
>
> If it was from the administrators then I have question for you:
>
> Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in violation
> with the law in many countries !
>
> Bye,
> Skybuck.
>
>
Sine the ISP is In the drivers seat, so to speak. It maybe better to
just communicate with them to find out the particulars. If you don't
like them get another ISP.

--

Thanks in Advance...
IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
__________________________________________________ ________________________

'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
-William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)

Nobody owns the entire internet and nobody owns a specific usenet newsgroup.

It's as simple as that.

The people running these news servers are allowed to connect to each other
etc.

As a matter of fact anybody can run a news server.

If you do not like what I have to say I suggest you simply place me in your
killfile and make a nice splonk sound with it.

Internet and usenet is as public as it can be.

If you like to play mister dictator I have some nice advice for you:

1. Move to china and embrace the great firewall.

2. Start your own private internet and private usenet.

I rest my case so to speak

Bye,
Skybuck.

"Walter Roberson" <> wrote in message
news:dqlqok$f9e$...
> In article <43ce60a0$0$719$ >,
> Skybuck Flying <> wrote:
> >I have received a complaint from my internet service provider for posting
my
> >idea's/opinions on this/these newsgroup(s).
>
> >Where can I find the policy for this newsgroup. I believe it is in
violation
> >with the law in many countries !
>
> Is your local newspaper -required- to print any and all articles you
> submit to them? Is The Voice of America -required- to broadcast your 2
> hour discussion of why Brittany Spears is the best artist, "like,
> ever!"? Is CNN -required- to broadcast your home video of your dog
> chasing a stick? Is your city -required- to allow you to put on a "You
> can't trust {specific <ethnicity|religion|Santa Claus>}" parade?
>
> "Free speech" means *at most* that the government cannot stop you from
> expressing your views in such ways as will not cause undue disturbances
> (and there are "prior restraint" exceptions in -every- country that I
> have examined.)
>
> "Free speech" does NOT mean that anyone is obliged to provide you with
> a forum to express those views, particularily if doing so would cost
> them money. And "Free speech" does not mean that people cannot complain
> about your expression of your views, does not mean that a business
> or individual cannot require you leave for having expressed those views,
> and does not mean that [in serious cases] that you cannot be arrested for
> having expressed those views.
>
> In my country, "free speech" is a legal concept that applies to
> "public places" -- and Usenet is NOT a "public place" (ask yourself
> who owns the systems that Usenet groups travel over and get stored in.)
>
>
> The closest Usenet gets to "free speech" is to say that "If one of
> the Big 8 newsgroups doesn't want your opinion, then go start an alt.*
> newsgroup and see if anyone bothers to carry it." And if even an alt.*
> newsgroup doesn't fly then you could try for a free.* newsgroup --
> I hear that the total audience for those has risen to 19 people now.
> "Free speech" doesn't mean you can force anyone to -listen- to you.
>
>
> If you go around trying to cite "free speech" laws as overriding
> Usenet policies and customs, then you WILL lose the debate,
> because those laws are *always* full of limitations.
>
> Oh and you should examine your contract with your ISP before you go
> much further: your contract with them very likely gives them the right
> to drop your service for pretty much any reason they want, -including-
> (and possibly specifically written into the contract) violating Usenet
> norms.
> --
> Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath
> been already of old time, which was before us. -- Ecclesiastes

"Gavin Deane" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> > Victor Bazarov wrote:
> > > Dave (from the UK) wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Purpose of comp.lang.c++
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/how-to-post.html
> > >>
> > >> I could write my own. What makes that more authorative than mine?
> > >
> > > Public acceptance of it as such. Go ahead, write your own and we will
> >
> > Who are "we" - the International Police Force?
>
> No. The community within the newsgroup, without whose acceptance no
> suggested change to the nature of the group would succeed.
>
> > > examine it and tell you (and everybody) whether what you wrote is more
> > > "authorative", less "authorative", or the same.
> >
> > Perhaps I would not care!
>
> If you violate the terms of your contract with your ISP, perhaps you
> might care.

I have not violated any terms, so you can sent abuses all you want.

>
> If your actions go against widely accepted netiquette conventions and
> you don't care, that might say something about you.

The netiquette does not require a user to agree or accept your charters.

I have a contract with my ISP which mentions the netiquette.

I have no contract with these newsgroups what so ever.

So you can go sent abuses all you want.

It's a nice educational exercise for the ISP's workforce and their own
rules/contracts.

Bye,
Skybuck.