From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 01:49:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net.fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the StacksRe: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks
Message-ID: <199712231746.SAA26055@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Colin Rafferty writes:
> 
> Tim May writes:

> > When the state-as-sovereign sets up libraries that don't carry Everything
> > (hint: and not even the LOC carries everything), then the choices it makes
> > can be seen by some to be First Amendment violations.
> 
> This is not a First Amendment violation.
> 
> The government is not required to promote all speech, but only to not
> restrict it.  Selection of books for a library does not abdridge freedom
> of speech, since the act of not selecting does not reduce speech.
> 
> Modifying the content of the selected books would be an infriging act,
> since that is a reduction.
> 
> They cannot subscribe to Playboy and then put pasties on the nipples.
> Nor can they subscribe to the Internet and then filter it.

And the difference between `selecting' which books to acquire for 
the library and `selecting' which web pages to receive is what?
Those pages `not selected' by the Internet filter are not `reduced'
any more than the `not selected' books.  There is no consistent
application of principle in your arguments.


> > A better solution is to get Government out of the business of running
> > libraries or providing Net access.
> 
> I fail to see how this will solve anything.

Then rub a couple of neurons together and see if you can generate
a spark.  If the government isn't in the business of either `selecting'
books or internet pages, then there is no `selecting' to be done in 
either case and therefore nothing to be solved.


-Frondeur