Damaged Justice wrote:
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. I take issue with the assumption that a carrier of the "internet postal service" has the status of a "private individual or organization." I think that a corporation providing a mail delivery service might not be as free as a private individual is to set arbitrary limits on the services they provide to their customers. 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. 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. If the Internet is supposed to be some sort of postal service, and the ISP's are supposed to be akin to carriers, who don't regulate content, then I think its wrong for them to regulate the content of the mail service that they provide, even in the case of junkmail. (Of course ISP's may impose various network controls that may have the effect of restricting mass mailings without discriminating against content per se. However, it is naive to assume that many network controls will not have some effect on content, simply because of a logical distinction between network control and editorial control - how many times have you heard various thinkers complain that the TV network soundbite isn't enough to sustain critical commentary, etc?)
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. 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.
-- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die! I feel a groove comin' on $ Freedom...yeah, right.
F Lengyel flengyel@dorsai.org http://www.dorsai.org/~flengyel