🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4fki1l$aiu@natasha.rmii.com>,
Maxwell Daymon <mdaymon@rainbow.rmii.com> wrote:
>Stephen Boursy (boursy@world.std.com) wrote:
>:
>: point was, and remains, that they have done virtually nothing for
>: individual consumers who have problems with ISP's regarding censorship--
>: i.e. plug pulling, content censorship, forged cencels, etc.  That to me
>: is where at least a healthy portion of the emphasis should be.
>
>
>And what CAN they do? If I go paint advertisements on the side of your 
>house and post my signs in your front yard, what organization would come 
>to MY defense yelling that you are stripping me of my 1st amendment 
>rights? Part of the lack of focus is due to the fact that this has to do 
>with the ISP's rights to NOT cater to you if they choose not to.
>
>The bottom line is that the ISP owns 'the press' and you have no more
>right to force them to distribute your crap than you do to force a
>newspaper to print YOUR stories on the front page (or any page) of the
>paper. Just like you don't get to paint on the front of my house and put
>your for sale signs in my yard, you don't get to tell me what I'll allow
>or disallow on my machines. 
>


	The average user now comes in from a large corporate ISP who
can well afford their own legal representation and lobbyists.  If the
EFF's position is in any way reflective of yours they are indeed dead.

	Users have a right to enjoy this medium without corporate 
interference--it's why we have people like Ralph Nader and why we
have consumer protection legislation in just about every other area.
Imagine if individual phone companies could behave in the same way.



>*CENSORSHIP* is when you ARE an ISP and the government shuts you down. As
>long as you are using other people's equipment, they get to say what goes.

	NO--the concern must be for the consumer.  As long as EFF continues
to rely on corporate funding that will not occur.


				Steve