From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: e0303075a7f57fd111b32e4f7eb5e201494c2835d9256e79c33dd0f25cb7e14e
Message ID: <199706040021.TAA16641@einstein.ssz.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-04 01:08:47 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:08:47 +0800
From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:08:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Webpage picketing
Message-ID: <199706040021.TAA16641@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text
Hi,
I want to thank everyone for their copius sharing of knowledge on this
issue. Where I was originaly going with this was comparing a supermarket and
the picketers on a public sidewalk and how the police must protect the
picketers from interference and interfering with customer access. The
thought that has been going around in my head for a few days was consider a
site whose traffic does over a publicly funded backbone (ie sidewalk &
customers). Now on this site is a webpage to which another group objects to.
Under what conditions akin to sidewalk use might a provider or network
provider be forced to provide any user requesting a link to the
objectionable page with the page of the objecting group.
What I see is a simple single screen page that immediatly takes you to the
desired page. Something conceptualy akin to a picket sign.
_______________________________________________________________________
| |
| Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. |
| |
| Slovenian Proverb |
| |
| Jim Choate ravage@ssz.com |
| The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com |
| Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
Return to June 1997
Return to “Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>”