🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec29.134900.22459@refrig.dixie.com> todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.) writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>Uunet /can't/ refuse service based on content...
>
>I disagree.  Uunet is a business, and can do anything it wants to.  The
>communication links they carry aren't regulated by the government, so far as
>I know, and they aren't a public utility, so they're free to cut off anyone
>that they want.

My fault for being vague... by "can't" I didn't mean "isn't allowed" to, I
meant "can't afford to".  They'd be opening themselves wide up to all sorts
of nastiness by setting a precedent for refusing service based on content.
Not the least of which would be that they'd have to start monitoring all
traffic, which is essentially impossible, and would endager their chances
of arguing "common carrier" status in a future legal action against them.

In short, they aren't going to do it.

>Y'all are just afraid to take on the task of pressuring an organization as
>large as uunet, perhaps for fear of retribution??  Seems pretty silly, really.

Oh, give me a break.  "Afraid to take on the task" my fanny... I
/support/ Uunet's policy of non-censorship 100%.  But even if I
didn't, just how do you propose to "pressure" Uunet?  What, like: "If
you don't cut off Serdar Argic we we'll boycott you."..?  Good luck
trying to organize a boycott against an organization that provides
many sorely needed services on the Net for free, never mind their
commercial importance.

Silly, indeed.
--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu