-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706060440.XAA08064@einstein.ssz.com>, on 06/05/97 at 11:40 PM, Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> said:

Forwarded message:

...

From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 23:46:16 -0500 Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)

...

Well this is why I had wanted to set the analogies aside. There are some real diferences between cyberspace and your metaspace analogy of the picket line. In cyberspace there is no sidewalk for your picket to stand and for me to pay as little or as much attention as I wish.

But there is, the publicly funded routers on the publicly funded network which are handling public traffic sitting in nice little queues just waiting to be processed.

Perhaps a slightly more complicated setup might make it clearer. Consider that we have some length of fiber laying from Chicago to Salt Lake City. That fiber is fully owned/funded by the federal government. The two routers on the end of the cable are also fully owned. Now from those routers extends another network cable that goes to fully privately owned networks. Now in Salt Lake City there is a young 14 year old girl that just took an at home pregnancy test. It turned up positive and she has pretty much lost it. Now in Chicago there is a webpage for an abortion clinic. Her sister lives in Chicago. The girl gets on her trusty little bit-pusher and proceeds to contact that page from a lookup done in Yahoo. Now at this point her parents still think that what you don't know can't hurt you and her sister has a vistor for a few days that summer.

Now ask yourself, does a anti-abortion group have any claim to providing that young girl alternate information that is not pro-abortion?

Well yes & no. :) Yes they have the same free speech right as anyone else. Do they have the right to force anyone to listen to their speech or force them to distribute it no. They can put up there own web page and if yahoo choses to they can provide links to it (thouhg yahoo is not required to do so). Anyone intrested in listening to what they have to say is free to go to their web site just as anyone is free to go to the abortion site and read that info. The anti-abortion group should not be required to present the views of their opposition and the same for the abortion group.

Perhaps this will better exemplify the demarcation I am making. I admit it is a thin line, but that is all it takes.

...

A more closer analogy between cyberspace and metaspace is that your picketors are not standing off to the side but are blocking the door and the only way I can enter is to read their signs first. This is the point where your picketors have oversteped the bounds of their 1st Amendment rights. While the have the right to picket infront of the store they cannot interfere with the comming and goings of the customers. The has been well tested in the courts. The problem with extending the picket analogy to cyberspace is there are no sidewalks. It's all or nothing. Either you are blocking the door or you are not

Not at all, blocking implies a stoppage NOT a delay. I suggest you sit outside an abortion clinic when the picketers are there. I assure you they are up close and personal. The old ruling of 15ft. seperation was over-turned just this year I believe. It is true that they may not block you but they are allowed to delay your journey slightly with civil coverage. I further belive the court would look at the nature of the Internet and the structure of the web and determine that a single page at the very beginning or perhaps a small splash screen first would not be an unwarranted imposition.

Well down here in Pensacola where we like to shoot abortion doctors I beleive that there is a 50' seperation (other side of the street). I don't know how the courts would rule but from past rulling against picketors interfering with the customers of a business I would tend to dissagree. To be honest I am not up on which way the wind is blowing in the courts on this issue. I do feel that the delay is unconstutional. It is where the fine line between your and my 1st amendment rights cross. The size and amount of delay is irrelevant from a constitutional standpoint (can't be a little bit pregnet can't be a little bit unconstitional). This is where are disagreement over the picket analogy rest. Inoreder for the picket analogy to be extended to cyberspace it requires me to download someone's elses speech before I can download the speech that I want to hear. In metaspace there is a sidewalk for the picketers to stand and I can pass them by without slowing down never hearing what they have to say. Here localy I have them well trained, when they see my vette they know not to block the driveway as I will not slow down for them (actually the sound of the 427 is enought to get them moving off to the side).

I want to make it clear, I am a strict Constitutionalist. I don't see the government having the delegated authority to spend any public money on the Internet, human cloning, BATF, DEA, etc. I believe strongly that such enterprises are best left fully in the state and individuals care. I most definitely believe that were the 9th and 10th Amendment interpreted and used actively we would see a massive decline in government intervention and as a consequence lower taxes.

Never questioned it. :) - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5elpY9Co1n+aLhhAQHj2wQAxcypN4AERgmHy1X5aDZI9/vMxKfXiQrG REgPV2inTnatWf05u6QWTyG8FjQecIQCSFyNa3OCjDU17u1vqjN91lvo+K3jtotV f88jkE4OSNzEZVKCZ0FjpWVECvFk1cpKgqQKtH4UFUmf04NDxgQ8nNFXu0cESA16 YchbsjWz7js= =Krwo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----