[ILUG] my comments on the constitution

[John Kelly]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Ross Lynch wrote:

> Perhaps censorship was the wrong word then. I am far from an expert on
> constitutions or other official documents, but I think it would be a
> little futile to put this in as being legally binding. I mean, if we
> were to get _that_ technical about it, couldn't someone just
> unsubscribe, go tell RTE what it is they have to say while 'claiming' to
> be from ILUG, and then resubscribe? It just seems like a strange legal
> issue over such a small unlikelihood. How many people are going to say
> on TV or elsewhere that all ILUGers hate Microsoft for example? 
> 
> Ross.

Like yourself, I'm not an expert on the legal system and official
documents, but I know that one thing they strive to protect themselves
against is misrepresentation, such as the example that you gave.  However,
in the example you gave, of the person unsubscribing, saying things in the
name of the ILUG, and then resubscribing, the person is not a member when
he says whatever it is he has to say, and so does not represent the views
of the ILUG.  And since even if he was a member when he said them, his
views do not represent those held by the ILUG, because of the clause in
the constitution that started this whole thing.

I personally think that the entry in the constitution, although sounding a
little anal, is one of the more important entries in it.

- John