scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I didn't get the impression that this was what the directive was going to do 
> at all.  It seemed to me like (in your analogy) the directive would be 
> giving the distributors the right to decide what they transported, and if 
> they didn't want to transport (say) Pepsi they couldn't be forced to.  It 
> just seems silly to me that something forcing that exists already.

  Yet it's nothing like that.

  There's a very fundamental difference between choosing whose physcial
goods you transport and actively blocking information which would otherwise
be available (at no additional cost to the company).

  If an ISP started censoring all websites related to a political party,
should they be allowed to do that? What if all the ISPs started blocking
all political parties except one? Should they be allowed to do that?

  No, they don't have the right to actively censor information which would
otherwise be available.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message