Hi, Forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:06:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)

Jim's fundamental misunderstanding below seems to be, as far as I can tell, confusing public funding with public forums.

What is amazing is your denying there is any sort of connection at all. I am not claiming that they are 1-to-1 as you would have readers believe but rather one brings along certain rights for the user from the other area. One of those rights is going to be protection of their civil liberties. Your tacit assertion that simply because some resource receives public money does not affect the civil or criminal aspect at all is also misleading.

Just because an entity receives most, or all, of its funding from the state does not mean that that entity or the service that entity provides becomes a public forum for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.

BUT, and you seem unable to grasp this important concept, its users DO receive such extra protection over and above a solely private resource. This means that communictions BETWEEN said users will ALSO gain that protection. Now it seems plain to me that if the reader sends a packet over that network link, the server sends a packet over that same network in responce a third party on that link with a CIVIL interest in the content of that exchange may be able to force a minimal level of communications because they ALSO use that link and have a vested interest in what the server is sending over that link publicly.

After all, many research universities receive half their revenues from Federal grants but they do not become public fora. I suppose part of the analysis in this case might turn on whether the state is setting up such networks itself and "owning" them or whether it's providing grants to a private entity.

If the government owns the link, say between Salt Lake and Chicago, wholely then there is most definitely a comparison to be made. Even if the funding is only partial that still brings along additional contractual obligations for the operators in regards to civil rights and legal protections. I could see them taking the end-point servers over on national security grounds (like civilian airport radio equipment or the telephone) in regards to breeches or damages against the servers. Shoot, they could integrate them into the EBS (or whatever they are calling it this week). That could mean that ANY hacking that was carried would automaticaly involve the government on national security grounds ("Damn, I wish I hadn't changed my password without writing it down!..."). THAT is just way too Red Scare for me.

Again, the Internet is not a public street.

Yes, and your point? It can't be that a specific backbone cable between two cities owned by the government is equivalent to the Internet in toto, even conceptualy. Because it is clear that such a construct is equivalent to the publicly funded highway running between the same cities, and you most definitely CAN picket on a highway easment legaly. I have seen farm workers in Texas do it my entire life. The Info-Highway comparison goes a LOT farther than most people seem to have taken it. I personaly, don't think we should go there in the case of communications technology. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage@ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|