From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To play Devil's Advocate here, I don't think this is as big a deal as either side is making it out to be. At least according to dgillmor's
column in today's San Jose Mercury News, SW meant (or has "clarified" his statements to mean) that he favors only limited remedial (not prior) restraints on "hate speech" (whatever the hell that means) on Web pages that approach "publishing" quality and distribution. SW does not favor and in fact opposes censoring newsgroups and email. ---------- Yes, it's good that he's favoring less restraint on speech than had previously appeared to be the case... but that still doesn't mean it's right. Is the censorship of broadcast media any better (of "indecent" speech) any better because after some time in the evening it doesn't apply? ----------
I don't think any media outlet should be forced to carry something it finds objectionable. Libertarian notions like freedom of association and
I very much applaud Sameer for his principles and hard work, but SW and
the fact that freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns the damn press come into play here. ------------ What the SWC appears to be doing is not saying that they'd refuse certain groups access if they were running an ISP. They're trying to make it look like any ISP that carries certain web pages is evil... and, to some degree, this appears to me that they're putting pressure on governments to ban the speech in question. I would guess that they support the ban in Germany, for instance. In addition, the fewer ISPs are carrying the information, the easier it is to ban entirely. ----------- the like have their own principles. They're not incompatible in a free society. ----------- The problem is not the principles of the SWC... it's their tactics. -Allen