COMMUNITY CONNEXION REFUSES TO CENSOR INTERNET SERVICES

[E. ALLEN SMITH]

From: Rich Graves <llurch at networking.stanford.edu>

>To play Devil's Advocate here, I don't think this is as big a deal as
either side is making it out to be. At least according to dgillmor's
column in today's San Jose Mercury News, SW meant (or has "clarified" his
statements to mean) that he favors only limited remedial (not prior)
restraints on "hate speech" (whatever the hell that means) on Web pages
that approach "publishing" quality and distribution. SW does not favor 
and in fact opposes censoring newsgroups and email.
----------
	Yes, it's good that he's favoring less restraint on speech than had
previously appeared to be the case... but that still doesn't mean it's right.
Is the censorship of broadcast media any better (of "indecent" speech) any
better because after some time in the evening it doesn't apply?
----------

>I don't think any media outlet should be forced to carry something it 
finds objectionable. Libertarian notions like freedom of association and 
the fact that freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns the damn 
press come into play here.
------------
	What the SWC appears to be doing is not saying that they'd refuse
certain groups access if they were running an ISP. They're trying to make it
look like any ISP that carries certain web pages is evil... and, to some
degree, this appears to me that they're putting pressure on governments to
ban the speech in question. I would guess that they support the ban in Germany,
for instance. In addition, the fewer ISPs are carrying the information, the
easier it is to ban entirely.
-----------

>I very much applaud Sameer for his principles and hard work, but SW and 
the like have their own principles. They're not incompatible in a free 
society.
-----------
	The problem is not the principles of the SWC... it's their tactics.
	-Allen