Jim writes: [Jim wants to be able to 'cyber-picket' - force people to read his opinions before they can browse sites he does not like. He is attempting to claim that the net backbones corrospond to public spaces, where his local government permits him to picket.]

Declan writes:

...

And I think that we should be very careful about calling the Net a public forum. Sure, places like Usenet resemble a public forum in some ways, but it's not the same.

But I am not calling the net a public forum. I am specificaly talking about a special case that might arise if we are not aware of the consequences. In short it is a statement that it MIGHT be possible to use publicly funded network backbones to seriously impede communication using the system against itself.

...

I think Greg has it right: you want to forcibly intervene in a communication between two consenting parties. What you want is similar to the right to come into my home and prevent me from speaking freely to my friend or lover.

'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? NSFnet and ARPAnet are long dead. Back when they were active, there was considerable debate about the legality of commercial speech on the net, and earlier, doubts about the legality of any traffic (including private email) which was not in support of government funded research. (the first big mailing list, the SF-Lovers Digest, had a quasi-underground existence for many years due to this worry). Jim also writes:

Lack of public space may be the saving grace, unfortunately there is quite a bit of involvment planned by Uncle Sam if I am not mistaken...Internet II... V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR... That supercomputer science network thingy...

None of which have the slightest relevance - Internet II is a proposed (and still vaporware) project for an academic-research-only network - it's future existence has no impact on those of us using the private backbone system of today. Ditto that 'supercomputer science network thingy' you mention, which I suspect is the same thing. As for "V-II Chip... GAK... ITAR": The fact that some people in government propose unconstitutional regulations, unworkable technologies, and policies which work against the public interest is not a basis to propose further undesirable policies. Question: if you get the ability to put up your 'cyber-picket' frame, how about cyber-counter-pickets? Cant the picketee put a page in front of yours? Who gets priority? Where does it stop? Jim, your idea is roadkill on that horribly imprecise analogy, the 'information superhighway' (spit). It can't be resuscitated by asking for 'information super-sidewalks' or claiming the existance of 'information super-public-spaces'. The underlying metaphor is fatally flawed. Peter Trei trei@process.com Disclaimer: These are my own opinions only.