1996-01-14 - Re: COMMUNITY CONNEXION REFUSES TO CENSOR INTERNET SERVICES

Header Data

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 893b5414ad9715be9ceaccc85d8e59adb21cba09db38002ade464c834d392a36
Message ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960114153117.23696N-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <2.2.32.19960114231553.00943bb4@panix.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-14 23:56:50 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 07:56:50 +0800

Raw message

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 07:56:50 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: COMMUNITY CONNEXION REFUSES TO CENSOR INTERNET SERVICES
In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960114231553.00943bb4@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960114153117.23696N-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> At 04:14 PM 1/14/96 +0000, attila wrote:
> >
> >	an excellent statement, sameer. many of our population around the 
> >    world will voice these sentiments, but how many will care to implement
> >    in the face of an onslaught by pressure groups, government, self-
> >    serving news services, etc?
> 
> Of the 7000+ ISPs on Earth, more than 1000.  More than enough.

To play Devil's Advocate here, I don't think this is as big a deal as
either side is making it out to be. At least according to dgillmor's
column in today's San Jose Mercury News, SW meant (or has "clarified" his
statements to mean) that he favors only limited remedial (not prior)
restraints on "hate speech" (whatever the hell that means) on Web pages
that approach "publishing" quality and distribution. SW does not favor 
and in fact opposes censoring newsgroups and email.

Throw that straw man away, and deal with these issues, as "clarified."

Of course some ISPs with no backbone will, and already do, censor 
newsgroups, but this is not what SW is asking for (at least, not now). 

I don't think any media outlet should be forced to carry something it 
finds objectionable. Libertarian notions like freedom of association and 
the fact that freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns the damn 
press come into play here.

I very much applaud Sameer for his principles and hard work, but SW and 
the like have their own principles. They're not incompatible in a free 
society.

I'd love it if the Christian Coalition would start an ISP (they already
have a Web site and private local dialups for special staff), and control
access however they wanted. I certainly wouldn't subscribe, but maybe my
Dad would. Maybe then they'd start to understand the technical issues, and
start leaving everyone else alone. 

To some extent, this has happened with CBN and Liberty University (Pat 
Robertson and Jerry Falwell), which have marginalized themselves.

-rich
 owner-win95netbugs@lists.stanford.edu
 ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/mailing-lists/win95netbugs/
 gopher://quixote.stanford.edu/1m/win95netbugs
 http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/win95netbugs/faq.html





Thread