Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
On Or About: 6 Sep 96 at 18:04, E. Allen Smith wrote:
list-managers list, a consent arrangement would thus be preferable. The other argument of the Cyber Promotions jerks is nonsense - how does AOL blocking affect the rest of the Internet?
It's affecting the rights of these fine spammers, Cyber Promotions. That affects spammers everywhere. More rules by our government affects all of us.
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (Sep 6, 1996 12:23 p.m. EDT) -- A federal judge has = <<<<SNIP>>>>> "We feel that America Online has violated the civil rights of their = members and has violated our rights to send e-mail through the Internet, = which AOL does not own," he said.
Although unsolicited mail sent through the post office in the United = States is not considered illegal, the rules have yet to be defined in = cyberspace.
That's the real point I have always made. No rules and we should not want rules. Why are we INVITING the government into OUR internet??? Just cause we have to read spam? That is just plain stupid!!! Just cause we have to read spam, oh well, let the government come on in. Do we let the government into our bedrooms because our wife says no to sex tonight or because we don't like to make our beds?? Everyone on this list seems to want to limit government intervention EXCEPT when it comes to spam, then every one just holds the door open wide and let them in. If they get that inch, they WILL take the whole 9 YARDS!!!!!! Get a clue, delete or killfile those who spam and keep the government out of cyberspace!!!!!! By the way, I get about 2 or 3 spams a day in my mailbox and it is not killing me! Don't get the wrong idea, I don't like it. I like the government WAY LESS!!!!! =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906
This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all. The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access. -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die! I feel a groove comin' on $ Freedom...yeah, right.
Damaged Justice wrote:
This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private enterprise. I take issue with the assumption that a carrier of the "internet postal service" has the status of a "private individual or organization." I think that a corporation providing a mail delivery service might not be as free as a private individual is to set arbitrary limits on the services they provide to their customers. Unlike the people who donate their time and resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary limits on the services they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so easily removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide services. One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is that you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason whatsoever. If the Internet is supposed to be some sort of postal service, and the ISP's are supposed to be akin to carriers, who don't regulate content, then I think its wrong for them to regulate the content of the mail service that they provide, even in the case of junkmail. (Of course ISP's may impose various network controls that may have the effect of restricting mass mailings without discriminating against content per se. However, it is naive to assume that many network controls will not have some effect on content, simply because of a logical distinction between network control and editorial control - how many times have you heard various thinkers complain that the TV network soundbite isn't enough to sustain critical commentary, etc?)
The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access.
Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services they provide - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another matter entirely. I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to act like petty dictators.
-- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die! I feel a groove comin' on $ Freedom...yeah, right.
F Lengyel flengyel@dorsai.org http://www.dorsai.org/~flengyel
This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private enterprise.
Perhaps that analogy held when the Internet was supported with money taken at gunpoint from all us tax serfs. No more - you wanna play, you gotta pay. Which is as it should be. [snip]
Unlike the people who donate their time and resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary limits on the services they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so easily removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide services.
If their business suffers because of a decision, they may reconsider that decision. If they don't, they'll either survive, or they won't, depending on if their customers will stand for it. I fail to see why charging money for the services one provides suddenly transforms a person into a slave, forced to provide service even if they do not wish to do so. Do you feel that providing a service for free is more "noble", somehow, and therefore more "worthy" of protection?
One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is that you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason whatsoever.
Who is going to "fire" a company that provides a service? The gubmint is your only alternative; the gun of the law, your only tool. If you don't like your ISP, get a different one. Spammers do it all the time. People are whining all over the place about "exercising arbitrary rights", as if it were eeeeevil when companies do it. Get a grip. It's called DISCRIMINATION, and it's not a bad word; it's just been corrupted beyond belief by the PC mindset. When I discriminate, I am exercising my taste, my judgment, in deciding who I wish to associate with; who I wish to give my money to in exchange for services; who I trust, and who I do not. If a company kicks a spammer off their system, what recourse do you want them to have, other than their right to "vote with their feet" and find a different provider? It seems you would find it favorable for them to go whining to the gubmint: "Waaah! He kicked us out of his treehouse! You go beat 'em up and make 'em take us back!" If they can seize John Adams' yacht, they can seize your beat-up old car. If they can force XYZ Corp to provide access, they can force anyone to do anything, and there is no grounds for complaint. After all, universal access must be provided! A chicken in every pot, and a router in every garage! Right?
The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access.
Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services they provide - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another matter entirely.
Because only the gummint can "censor". Whatever anyone else does is NOT censorship, unless you want to redefine words to suit your pleasure. It is exercising judgment and taste. Whether you find that judgment acceptable or not is not an excuse to impose your judgment on others at gunpoint.
I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to act like petty dictators.
Pot. Kettle. Black. -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information why the dancing shouting why the shrieks of pain the lovely music why the smell of burning autumn leaves working on the tiny blueprint of the angle I must be silent must contain my secret smile you my mirror you my iron bars
Damaged Justice wrote:
This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private enterprise.
Perhaps that analogy held when the Internet was supported with money taken at gunpoint from all us tax serfs. No more - you wanna play, you gotta pay. Which is as it should be.
[snip]
Unlike the people who donate their time and resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary limits on the services they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so easily removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide services.
If their business suffers because of a decision, they may reconsider that decision. If they don't, they'll either survive, or they won't, depending on if their customers will stand for it.
My point exactly I fail to see why charging money
for the services one provides suddenly transforms a person into a slave, forced to provide service even if they do not wish to do so.
Non-sequiteur. Do you feel
that providing a service for free is more "noble", somehow, and therefore more "worthy" of protection?
Non-sequiteur.
One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is that you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason whatsoever.
Who is going to "fire" a company that provides a service? The gubmint is your only alternative; the gun of the law, your only tool.
You provide the answer that I had in mind:
If you don't like your ISP, get a different one. Spammers do it all the time.
People are whining all over the place about "exercising arbitrary rights", as if it were eeeeevil when companies do it. Get a grip.
Non sequiteur. You're not responding to my point, which is a moral criticism of the tone of statements like
any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
which seem to oversimplify matters for corporations like AOL. Of course AOL can repeat statements like these to its customers until it was blue in the face, but the good news is that their customers could vote with their feet. My criticism of your statement is that it an aethetically ugly and hippocritical position to take, if one purports to provide mail services to hundreds of thousands of customers, or purports not to engage in editorial control, or purports to promote free speech. If ISP's want to provide services subject to arbitary limitations fine ... I am stating that I find this practice deplorable, and I have not implied that I favor government regulation to correct such situations, as much as you want to believe that I have.
If a company kicks a spammer off their system, what recourse do you want them to have, other than their right to "vote with their feet" and find a different provider?
None.
It seems you would find it favorable for them to go whining to the gubmint: "Waaah! He kicked us out of his treehouse! You go beat 'em up and make 'em take us back!"
That's an overinterpretation of my words.
If they can seize John Adams' yacht, they can seize your beat-up old car. If they can force XYZ Corp to provide access, they can force anyone to do anything, and there is no grounds for complaint. After all, universal access must be provided! A chicken in every pot, and a router in every garage! Right?
Non sequiteur.
The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access.
Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services they provide - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another matter entirely.
Because only the gummint can "censor". Whatever anyone else does is NOT censorship, unless you want to redefine words to suit your pleasure. It is exercising judgment and taste. Whether you find that judgment acceptable or not is not an excuse to impose your judgment on others at gunpoint.
What dictionary do you use?
I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to act like petty dictators.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I see you've looked in the mirror recently :)
-- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information why the dancing shouting why the shrieks of pain the lovely music why the smell of burning autumn leaves working on the tiny blueprint of the angle I must be silent must contain my secret smile you my mirror you my iron bars
F Lengyel flengyel@dorsai.org http://www.dorsai.org/~flengyel
If AOL wants to stop spammers, let them. They have every right to do so as long as their agreement with their customers permits it. It's a matter of contract law between AOL and its customers and should not involve the spammers and a lawsuit brought by the spammers. It seems as though the judge was snookered by the spammers' claim of U.S. Mail-like service, free speech, blah. The right to free speech does extend to corporations; in that way, it includes the right *not* to speak. -Declan On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Damaged Justice wrote:
This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all. The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access.
-- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die! I feel a groove comin' on $ Freedom...yeah, right.
// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
participants (4)
-
Damaged Justice -
Declan McCullagh -
Florian Lengyel -
Ross Wright