At 10:52 PM 2/3/96 +0000, Stephan Mohr wrote:
But do you fighter[s] for free speech, in principle, think that nothing, really nothing, [should] be prevented [from] being published?
Yes:
[...]
I know, of course, that by accepting that there is something that shouldn't be available on the net, we would need something to decide what and how to ban. So I wonder what would be a more 'net'-like way of handling this type of thing and how to prevent that some 'strong-armed' governments take the net over.
There is no "net-like" way of preventing people from communicating when one wishes to speak and another wishes to listen. To attempt to achieve such a goal violates the principles that made the internet possible, such as the "no settlements" rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com