From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 15:54:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: UK IP Censorship
In-Reply-To: <199605061552.IAA15075@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960506175254.5643C-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Mon, 6 May 1996 anonymous-remailer@shell.portal.com wrote:

> Financial Times, 6 May 1996
> 
> Internet provider to launch censorship
> 
> By James Mackintosh in London
[...]
> 
> Pipex - the UK arm of UUNet of the US - does not expect a
> backlash from users over the censorship.

Let's see to it that they're wrong.

[ObFUCKING-STATIST: while the article is newbiegarbled, as far as I can
tell, they're only blocking specific newsgroups, and not any IP routes,
which would be worse. IMO, ISPs have the right to block certain
newsgroups, as long as they tell customers what they're doing. HOWEVER, if
Pipex is as big an uber-ISP and news feeder of ISPs as UUNet is here, then
they've clearly gone over the line as far as I'm concerned. I don't care
if AOL blocks alt.sex.kiddie-porn, because the kiddie-porners can simply
move to a real ISP; but the big players have more of an obligation to act
as content-neutral common carriers.]

-rich