From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 16:54:44 PDT
To: hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
Subject: Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9404031725.A2543-0100000@krypton.mankato.msus.edu>
Message-ID: <199404032355.QAA18985@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Robert Hayden wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think the anarchy of the net will work for
> much longer.  Sooner or later, cryptography issues aside, somebody
> is going to regulate access or content or both.

I think the "anarchy" of the net works just fine and can be compared
to the "anarchy" of conversation.  Would it be considered reasonable
to monitor and restrict conversations between free people?  Would it
be reasonable to regulate the friends people make or the parties they
attend?  The answer should be "no" in both cases.

> The old idea that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.  Not
> because 'Fire' is a censored word, or yelling 'fire' is bad in all
> cases, but because a crowded theatre is an improper forum.

This analogy was originally used by Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify
the arrest and imprisonment of people who spoke against World War I in
the streets of New York City.  This analogy is almost always used to
justify repressive policies.  It is entirely inappropriate for
cyberspace anyway, since nobody is going to be trampled running to
their front yard!

I think you are well-intentioned, but I think looking to the U.N. to
protect individual rights will not work well.  Most of the governments
which belong to the U.N. are totalitarian.

I think that most of what you really want to see happen can be
summarized as: "People have the right to communicate freely and,
therefore, privately."  I wouldn't complain if this became a
Constitutional Amendment or if the U.N. adopted it, but I would prefer
to see a world where free communication is so basic to the fabric of
society that it would be difficult to do things in any other way.

Peter