Nelson, David writes: > For example, consider two college roommates. One wishes to exercise his > freedom of expression by listing to music until 3 AM in the morning > (without the benefit of headphones, of course!). The other wishes to > exercise his right to get sufficient sleep so as to be well rested for > the big exam the following morning. Clearly, each roommate, taken > individually, is exercising a reasonable freedom, but in this case they > have come into conflict. The student listening to music need only put on headphones, then they will both be happy. It's a poor analogy. > While I have no opinion on the current case, it seems to me that the > basis for any such PR decision has to be based on the balance of rights. > Does the right of the allegedly abusive poster to express himself come > into conflict with the rights of the other mailing list participants to > conduct an orderly discourse? If such a conflict exists, then is the > imposition on the many sufficiently large to justify limiting the rights > of the one? Unless the allegedly abusive poster is engaging in a technical denial of service or other action unrelated to the actual substance of what he is posting, there is never any reason to exclude him. Censorship is disguised in many forms; many people like to practice it, but very few are willing to call it what it is. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf