From: "Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 23:46:05 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com
Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
Message-ID: <199706041452.JAA01618@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim writes:

[Jim wants to be able to 'cyber-picket' - force people to read his 
 opinions before they can browse sites he does not like. He is 
 attempting to claim that the net backbones corrospond to public
 spaces, where his local government permits him to picket.]

> Declan writes:
>> And I think that we should be very careful about calling the Net a public
>> forum. Sure, places like Usenet resemble a public forum in some ways, but
>> it's not the same.
> 
> But I am not calling the net a public forum. I am specificaly talking about
> a special case that might arise if we are not aware of the consequences. In
> short it is a statement that it MIGHT be possible to use publicly funded
> network backbones to seriously impede communication using the system against
> itself.

>> I think Greg has it right: you want to forcibly intervene in a
>> communication between two consenting parties. What you want is
>> similar to the right to come into my home and prevent me from
>> speaking freely to my friend or lover. 


'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? 
NSFnet and ARPAnet are long dead. Back when they were active, there was 
considerable debate about the legality of commercial speech on the 
net, and earlier, doubts about the legality of any traffic (including 
private email) which was not in support of government funded research.
(the first big mailing list, the SF-Lovers Digest, had a 
quasi-underground existence for many years due to this worry).

Jim also writes:

>Lack of public space may be the saving grace, unfortunately there is
>quite a bit of involvment planned by Uncle Sam if I am not
>mistaken...Internet II... V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR... That
>supercomputer science network thingy...

None of which have the slightest relevance - Internet II is a 
proposed (and still vaporware) project for an academic-research-only
network - it's future existence has no impact on those of us using
the private backbone system of today. Ditto that 'supercomputer 
science network thingy' you mention, which I suspect is the same 
thing. As for "V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR": The fact that some people
in government propose unconstitutional regulations, unworkable
technologies, and policies which work against the public interest
is not a basis to propose further undesirable policies.

Question: if you get the ability to put up your 'cyber-picket' frame,
how about cyber-counter-pickets? Cant the picketee put a page in 
front of yours? Who gets priority? Where does it stop? 

Jim, your idea is roadkill on that horribly imprecise analogy, 
the 'information superhighway' (spit). It can't be resuscitated 
by asking for 'information super-sidewalks' or claiming the existance 
of 'information super-public-spaces'. The underlying metaphor is 
fatally flawed.

Peter Trei
trei@process.com
Disclaimer: These are my own opinions only.