I think that analogies are useful to illustrate a point, but a poor basis for making new laws or new policies. I think it makes more sense to look at the reasoning behind the first policy, and/or the combination of conditions and policies that created it, and see if they're present (or not) in the situation which seems to require a new policy. In the particular case of the Internet, I don't think it's at all clear that a public highway is the best (or only) analogy which is appropriate - for example, one could also draw an analogy to a *freeway* .. which, at least in many places, are not open to picketers or pedestrians of any sort. Another easy analogy is to the postal service - it's more or less government-run (haven't kept track of the precise line that's drawn), but there's certainly no right to "picket" communications sent using this government-owned media .. I don't get to add extra pages to letters that my neighbors get, nor they to mine. And there's no First Amendment problem there - if I want to communicate with someone about an issue, I can send them mail. Third parties have no right to interfere, nor to learn our names so that they can bombard us with mail. And the same is true for communications sent by private carriers like FedEx and UPS, even where those private carriers use public facilities like roads and sidewalks and airports to carry on their private businesses, delivering private communications. Incidental use of a public facility does not nationalize a private person/organization. (I think the argument is stronger where a private party monopolizes a public resource - but I suspect that my gut reaction to that isn't compatible with what courts are doing these days.) This discussion is getting waylaid with a host of weakly-related and poorly-understood legal doctrines - e.g., a "right to picket", "public forums", and "right to privacy". Instead of getting bogged down in those tarpits (or distracted by their attractive pseudo-official flavor), let's focus on the real question(s) at hand. I understand to proposal to be that it'd be somehow beneficial if the government interferes with communications between consenting parties if the communication happens to touch or utilize a publically owned/funded resource ... or that such interference is allowed or required by the First Amendment. I think that presents a much clearer and more fundamental First Amendment question - e.g., can the government force me to say things I don't want to say? Can the government intercept speech from me to another person and preface or wrap it with some sort of counterargument provided by people who disagree with me? I think the answer is (and should be) a slam-dunk "no". No tricky analogies needed. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles@netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |