Re: Letter to the Observer [re: Internet paedophile]
On 4 Sep 96 at 5:41, Martin Minow wrote:
Forwarded to me by a friend:
The following letters were delivered to the Editor of the Observer last week as a request to publish a retraction of their article relating to the Internet that appeared on Sunday 25th. August.
One way to limit or retaliate against diffamation would be to refuse internet access to anybody known to be part of any such medias, being tv or paper. ISPs would probably easily agree since the revenues coming from journalists vs from the general population is probably minuscule. Of course, the conventionnal media would set up their own ISP but they could be identified. Does that makes sense or am I out to lunch? jfa Jean-Francois Avon DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891
Jean-Francois Avon wrote:
On 4 Sep 96 at 5:41, Martin Minow wrote:
Forwarded to me by a friend:
The following letters were delivered to the Editor of the Observer last week as a request to publish a retraction of their article relating to the Internet that appeared on Sunday 25th. August.
One way to limit or retaliate against diffamation would be to refuse internet access to anybody known to be part of any such medias, being tv or paper.
ISPs would probably easily agree since the revenues coming from journalists vs from the general population is probably minuscule. Of course, the conventionnal media would set up their own ISP but they could be identified.
Does that makes sense or am I out to lunch?
I don't think it makes sense. The media would be the first to point the finger at the ISPs for censorship in such a case, one imagines (whether it could be justified or not is a different matter of course). James. -- "Yield to temptation -- | Work: james@corp.netcom.net.uk it may not pass your way again" | Play: james@hermione.demon.co.uk | http://www.netcom.net.uk/~james/ - Lazarus Long | James Fidell
On 4 Sep 96 at 5:41, Martin Minow wrote:
Forwarded to me by a friend:
The following letters were delivered to the Editor of the Observer last week as a request to publish a retraction of their article relating to the Internet that appeared on Sunday 25th. August.
One way to limit or retaliate against diffamation would be to refuse internet access to anybody known to be part of any such medias, being tv or paper.
ISPs would probably easily agree since the revenues coming from journalists vs from the general population is probably minuscule. Of course, the conventionnal media would set up their own ISP but they could be identified.
Does that makes sense or am I out to lunch?
AOL will take them. Most of them are on there anyway.
jfa
Jean-Francois Avon DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers.
PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891
Jean-Francois, your comments are inspired! As a member of "such media" in that I still publish articles on dead trees -- I have articles in fall issues of Wired and Playboy, for instance -- I rejoice in your reasoned suggestion that you deny me and my ilk access to the Net. But wait! I connect through wired.com, eff.org, or *.edu accounts. How do you plan to kick me off my "ISPs?" No, you're not out to lunch. -Declan On Wed, 4 Sep 1996, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:
One way to limit or retaliate against diffamation would be to refuse internet access to anybody known to be part of any such medias, being tv or paper.
ISPs would probably easily agree since the revenues coming from journalists vs from the general population is probably minuscule. Of course, the conventionnal media would set up their own ISP but they could be identified.
Does that makes sense or am I out to lunch?
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Douglas R. Floyd -
James Fidell -
Jean-Francois Avon