Jim rites:

Logic lesson for Padgett: There are at least three categories here: 1. Government restricts communication. 2. Government neither assists nor restricts communication. 3. Government assists communication. (through stolen tax dollars, BTW.)

Oh, now I see where you are confused. To me there are at least six categories - the three you mention but in matrix form with two columns: Wholly inside the USA and from the USA to/from "elsewhere". (2) applies inside the USA and in some cases (3) - and tax dollars are not necessarily "stolen", the Constitution specifies that taxes may be levied for certain matters. (1) does not apply though through the rationale/excuse of "maximising the use for all" some regulations have been enacted primarily by the FCC. It is not improbable that the FCC's area of responsibility might extend to the Internet once considered a "national resource". Not saying right or wrong, just "could" & would not be surprised. In the case of communications with "other" entities, I expect all three to apply in different instances - what makes anon.penet.fi different from the L. A. Times. Now in the case of extra-National communications, I believe that in certain cases the Nation-state has not only the sovereign right of control but the obligation to control. For example just to pick a popular example, France might negotiate a trade agreement with the USA that included an agreement to block all PGP communications between the two countries. That would be legal. What the US does not really have is the *ability* to control communications. Warmly, Padgett