On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Dan Hollis wrote:
> > See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
> Why necessarily should I care about United States Post Office
> or United States in general ?
I suspect canadian law has similar precedents.
> > *Your* right to free speech stops at *my*
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
> On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> > >
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> > > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to
On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote:
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> > barriers to a minority expressing speech that
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> > barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
> > majority. This is not acceptable.
>
> See
Even not specifically disagreeing, but
Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
Why necessarily should I care about United States Post Office
or United States in general ?
>
>
> *Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property.
>
> Under no circumstances does your right
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
> barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
> majority. This is not acceptable.
See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
*Your* right to free speech stops
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:30:14PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
> > various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
> >
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
> various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
> blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two
>
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
blocking entire rogue domains. If that rogue domain happens to be a two
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:30:14PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:22:28PM -0500, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
I already run several sugarplum sites with teergrubes. I also use
various blackhole lists and take other action against spammers, including
blocking
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
majority. This is not acceptable.
See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
*Your* right to free speech stops at
Even not specifically disagreeing, but
Dan Hollis wrote:
See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
Why necessarily should I care about United States Post Office
or United States in general ?
*Your* right to free speech stops at *my* property.
Under no circumstances does your right to
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
majority. This is not acceptable.
See Rowan v.
On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
barriers to a minority expressing speech that is
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 08:24:16PM -0800, Dan Hollis wrote:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
barriers to a minority expressing speech that is unacceptable to the
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
On Sunday 07 January 2001 21:24, Dan Hollis wrote:
*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
You are suggesting that it is acceptable to implement technological
barriers
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
Dan Hollis wrote:
See Rowan v. United States Post Office.
Why necessarily should I care about United States Post Office
or United States in general ?
I suspect canadian law has similar precedents.
*Your* right to free speech stops at *my*
18 matches
Mail list logo
