From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 94 20:04:41 PDT
To: darklord+@CMU.EDU
Subject: Re: THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights
In-Reply-To: <ohbqKw_00iV384aGB6@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <199404040305.UAA14774@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jeremiah A Blatz writes:
> One should definatly be able to speak one's mind in a public place,
> but what defines a public place in cyberspace? Really, no place (at
> the moment) is truly public. Every computer is owned by somebody.  I
> think this is an area where the real-world paradigm is effective. In
> the real world, we have private spaces, and government-owned public
> ones (parks). I think a set government-run nodes would be a good
> idea. The law would require them to be freely accessable by
> everyone. Of course, how they could be used would be limited (you
> can't live on a park, you couldn't use an e-park for long-term data
> storage). The current basic internet (netnews, irc, anon ftp, most
> www) is run, more or less, how I would imagine this e-park.

The concept of a public place isn't all that useful in cyberspace
since it's easy and inexpensive for people to set up their own nodes.
If you would like to see a node created with rules about how the
participants behave, you are certainly free to set one up.  It's
pretty cheap to set up nodes now and it's going to be cheaper in the
future.  In effect, cyberspace has an unlimited area is infinitely
dimensioned; that is, every point is connectable to every other point.

> I prefer some regulation, such as mandating that everyone would have
> access to a reasonably prices public carrier...

I can't see any reason to regulate my node if you only want people to
have access to other nodes.  I would suggest that what you really want
is a subsidy system.

> For example, take the freedom of speech. I can say what I like as
> long as I don't libel someone...

I realize you are not advocating libel laws here, but I think it's
important to recognize that they are opposed to free speech and are,
in my view, unconstitional.  In the San Francisco area they have been
used in the East Bay to discourage people from speaking against, among
others, the University of California.  The problem isn't just the
possibility of losing a lawsuit, many people simple cannot afford to
defend themselves.  I suspect libel laws prevent many interesting
stories from being told.  That is unfortunate.

Peter