This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private enterprise.
Perhaps that analogy held when the Internet was supported with money taken at gunpoint from all us tax serfs. No more - you wanna play, you gotta pay. Which is as it should be. [snip]
Unlike the people who donate their time and resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary limits on the services they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so easily removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide services.
If their business suffers because of a decision, they may reconsider that decision. If they don't, they'll either survive, or they won't, depending on if their customers will stand for it. I fail to see why charging money for the services one provides suddenly transforms a person into a slave, forced to provide service even if they do not wish to do so. Do you feel that providing a service for free is more "noble", somehow, and therefore more "worthy" of protection?
One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is that you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason whatsoever.
Who is going to "fire" a company that provides a service? The gubmint is your only alternative; the gun of the law, your only tool. If you don't like your ISP, get a different one. Spammers do it all the time. People are whining all over the place about "exercising arbitrary rights", as if it were eeeeevil when companies do it. Get a grip. It's called DISCRIMINATION, and it's not a bad word; it's just been corrupted beyond belief by the PC mindset. When I discriminate, I am exercising my taste, my judgment, in deciding who I wish to associate with; who I wish to give my money to in exchange for services; who I trust, and who I do not. If a company kicks a spammer off their system, what recourse do you want them to have, other than their right to "vote with their feet" and find a different provider? It seems you would find it favorable for them to go whining to the gubmint: "Waaah! He kicked us out of his treehouse! You go beat 'em up and make 'em take us back!" If they can seize John Adams' yacht, they can seize your beat-up old car. If they can force XYZ Corp to provide access, they can force anyone to do anything, and there is no grounds for complaint. After all, universal access must be provided! A chicken in every pot, and a router in every garage! Right?
The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access.
Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services they provide - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another matter entirely.
Because only the gummint can "censor". Whatever anyone else does is NOT censorship, unless you want to redefine words to suit your pleasure. It is exercising judgment and taste. Whether you find that judgment acceptable or not is not an excuse to impose your judgment on others at gunpoint.
I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to act like petty dictators.
Pot. Kettle. Black. -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information why the dancing shouting why the shrieks of pain the lovely music why the smell of burning autumn leaves working on the tiny blueprint of the angle I must be silent must contain my secret smile you my mirror you my iron bars