From: James Fidell <james@corp.netcom.net.uk>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:28:39 +0800
To: jf_avon@citenet.net
Subject: Re: Letter to the Observer [re: Internet paedophile]
In-Reply-To: <9609041639.AA25461@cti02.citenet.net>
Message-ID: <199609041954.UAA04906@corp.netcom.net.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Jean-Francois Avon wrote:

> On  4 Sep 96 at 5:41, Martin Minow wrote:
> 
> > Forwarded to me by a friend:
> 
> > The following letters were delivered to the Editor of the Observer
> > last week as a request to publish a retraction of their article
> > relating to the Internet that appeared on Sunday 25th. August.
> 
> One way to limit or retaliate against diffamation would be to refuse 
> internet access to anybody known to be part of any such medias, being 
> tv or paper.
> 
> ISPs would probably easily agree since the revenues coming from
> journalists vs from the general population is probably minuscule. Of
> course, the conventionnal media would set up their own ISP but they
> could be identified.
> 
> Does that makes sense or am I out to lunch?

I don't think it makes sense.  The media would be the first to
point the finger at the ISPs for censorship in such a case, one
imagines (whether it could be justified or not is a different matter
of course).

James.
-- 
 "Yield to temptation --             | Work: james@corp.netcom.net.uk
  it may not pass your way again"    | Play: james@hermione.demon.co.uk
                                     | http://www.netcom.net.uk/~james/
        - Lazarus Long               |              James Fidell