From owner-freebsd-isp Sun May 4 16:11:47 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22257 for isp-outgoing; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:11:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns2.win.net (ns2.win.net [204.215.209.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA22248 for ; Sun, 4 May 1997 16:11:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from launchpad.win.net (uucp@localhost) by ns2.win.net (8.6.12/8.6.9) with UUCP id TAA10453 for freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG; Sun, 4 May 1997 19:02:19 -0400 Received: by win.net!launchpad; Sun, 04 May 1997 18:09:38 X-Mailer: WinNET Mail, v4.0c Message-ID: Reply-To: fbsd-isp@launchpad.win.net (Joe Mays - freebsd-isp) To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Sun, 04 May 1997 18:09:38 -0400 Subject: Re: News... From: fbsd-isp@launchpad.win.net (Joe Mays - freebsd-isp) Sender: owner-isp@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >> In my experience, the amount of >> dollars we have spent on legal defense for carrying whatever comes >> down the usenet pipe is approximately $0. > >*so* far. > >If you've been listening to the arguement you'll know that there ARE >groups out there who are starting to put pressure on ISPs carrying >binary groups, pornography in particular. So what? Dropping the groups *then* is a matter of sending one command to ctlinnd. There are also groups fighting for free speech. Given the choice of actions right now I would choose to support the fight for free speech. Giving in now risks both losing customers unnecessarily and implies that the battle is a lost cause when it isn't. >So right now its $0, but the risk is there that it WILL start costing to >keep the groups legally. > > >> This aspect of your argument seems specious to me. > >You don't seem to be thinking ahead. Okay, let me rephrase the statement. Claiming that legal costs are in any way relevant to keeping all usenet groups is a specious argument right now. I'll listen to it when the laws change. Joe Mays