From fork-admin@xent.com Thu Sep 19 16:25:57 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2750716F03 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:25:57 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Thu, 19 Sep 2002 16:25:57 +0100 (IST) Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8JDdtC21726 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 14:39:56 +0100 Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC3D9294109; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com (imo-d07.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.39]) by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734B829409E for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 06:35:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ThosStew@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id 2.d3.11f46440 (4410) for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:39:00 -0400 (EDT) From: ThosStew@aol.com Message-Id: Subject: Re: Hanson's Sept 11 message in the National Review Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Mac sub 45 Sender: fork-admin@xent.com Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 09:39:00 EDT In a message dated 9/19/2002 7:46:37 AM, chuck@topsail.org writes: >That means *you* can't say anything may not be FoRKed or printed or >whatever. You have the choice to ignore it That's not what the First Amendment says at all. It says that Congress cannot say what can't be FoRKed. FoRK can establish any rules it wants. Similarly, The New York Times gets to choose what news IT thinks is "fit to print." If the Times chose not to print anything about, say, Rosie O'Donnell, it would be exercising its First Amendment rights, just as much as it would be if it chose to print something Rosie O'Donnell doesn't like. The necessary corollary of the freedom to say/publish what one wants is the freedom to refuse to publish or say what one doesn't like. The alternative is a state-controlled press that reprints government press releases and calls them news. The question of what is or is not FoRKed is (except for libel or other specific exceptions) not a matter of law, but a matter of what the "publisher" (if any) decides or the "community" (if any) negotiates or does as a matter of custom. For my part, I'd rather people didn't use FoRK as a place in which to dump an expression of their political beliefs. Tom