🚀 go-pugleaf

cjs@cynic.portal.ca (Curt Sampson) wrote:

>In article <34B577C3.68B1@capcollege.bc.ca>,
>Theseus, Duke of Athens <NOSPAMjcarlisl@capcollege.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>>Free speech must be an absolute right....
>
>I don't see how Jason's rights have been violated. The VCN did not
>stop him from saying what the wanted to say; they simply stopped
>him from saying it using their resources. Or do you now support
>some sort of law to force those with publishing ability to finance
>the publishing of others' views?
>
>>Thats why the 1st ammendment to the U.S. constitution is
>>so important. It is a safeguard against tyranny.  Too bad we don't have
>>the same rights here.
>
>Ah, another completely clueless one. Perhaps you should read this
>ammendment before you start spouting off about it. You'll note that
>it starts, `Congress shall pass no law....' The first ammendment
>applies *only* to the government, and would have no bearing on this
>case.

His rights were not abridged by VCN cutting him.  Obviously, because
he's here now.  What worries me is that someone said that an ISP is a
party to a libel suit at the moment.  If ISP's are responsible for the
content of Usenet, then we have a more insidious threat to free speech
than simple "We don't want to associate with Jason Black" (freedom of
association for VCN).  If an ISP is required to do more than identify
a userid to authoritied searching for a libel defendant then I worry
for free speech.  In my opinion, freedom of association means that VCN
can cut someone they don't like, but a legal liability for ISP's is a
real threat to free speech.