At 02.05.2000 19:45 Steve Sabram wrote:
(...)
>> Who decides what is respectful?
>It is arbitrary upon the owner of the server.
>It is very much like the signs
>"We reserve there right to refuse service to anyone."
>that you see in restaurants and coffee houses.
I allow myself to add a little note to this answer:
According to german laws and I hope to any
other civilized country�s laws as well an
individual has or should have the claim to make a
contract for a service in certain circumstances.
In other words one party to an agreement has the
obligation to enter into an agreement IF the refusal
turns out to be a discrimination for the refused person
or more common spoken: if the refusal shall intentionally
damage someone and if this damage is conflicting with
national policy and public morals or as the latin speaking
would say is "contra bonos mores".
It should be obvious that the REASON for the refusal
is the determining factor.
Let�s have a closer look to a simple example
that makes clear the sense of this opinion.
Imagine you live in a little village where exists only
one theater or one butcher or let�s say one bakery.
In this village the theatre and the butcher as well
as the baker are monopolists. The inhabitants of this
village MUST have a claim to enter into an agreement
with any of these monopolists under normal circumstances
because these people have a monopoly on an essential
part of living, namely culture and food.
If for example the chief of the theatre does not like the
local newspapers critics about their last play he should not
be allowed to refuse the journalist to enter the theater by
just saying "I have the right to choose the persons I want
to sign a contract with". The Baker should as well not be allowed
to refuse a woman just because he does not like her husband
and the butcher should not be allowed to refuse a colored
customer because he is not white. In these examples the customer
would be intentionally damaged and this damage would be conflicting
with the national policy and public morals of any civilzed
country.
I could easily add more obvious arguments that strike against
the mentioned "right to refuse anyone without a serious reason".
(I.E. consider the right of free speech...)
I do not want to defend Michael Sokolv. I just do not agree with
the one single statement that Steve Sabram mentioned above.
The questions one should ask are:
1. Is Palm a monopolist with this mailing list?
2. Does Palm with this banning intentionally wants to damage
Michael Sokolov in a way conflicting with national policy
and public morals?
(Which concrete comments or concrete actions are the reason
Michael Sokolov is banned for?)
------------------------------
Nik Wiesel: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===============================================================
The above statement is my own opinion and does not represent
the point of view of any organization I am related to.
===============================================================
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
