Warp wrote:
>   Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. Is there something in the
> word "to block" that I'm missing and could cause different interpretations?
> Because I can't believe you are saying that your ISP is blocking access
> to your competitors' websites from its clients.

	I feel you're invoking a false dichotomy. If the law _explicitly_
states that you can do that, it's problematic. If the law just says you
can filter by content, I'm sure the ISP's are still required to follow
fair competition laws. However, if the ISP were to say "No access to
sites selling clothing", that's not unfair competition.

	Likewise, if I own a mall, I can simply declare that no clothing stores
are allowed.

	BTW, newspapers do it even more blatantly. They have the right to
reject any "letter to the editor". On numerous occasions, they've
refused to publish political ads by certain parties. It is, AFAIK,
completely legal for them to do so - if they're run by private entities.

>   Have you ever heard of the concept of fair commerce? Fair competition?
> Monopoly laws? Ring a bell?

	And so does the proposed law _explicitly_ state that monopolies will be
allowed? If not, then likely the ISP's still won't be allowed to do what
you're describing.

>   So you are saying that active censorship is perfectly fine from the
> point of view of basic human rights?

	The only time it is wrong is when you actively censor a means that is
considered a public good. So if there's a state park, I can't stop
anyone from saying whatever they want there. If I own a business,
though, I can put quite a lot of limits to free speech in it. Active
censorship over there _is_ allowed.

	The real issue is that online forums, etc, are not yet considered a
"public good". The laws quite reflect that: If I run a site, and someone
plots a murder via some messageboard on my site, I am usually legally
liable _unless_ I explicitly state that I don't monitor it and that all
comments are the responsibility of whoever posted them.

>>>  No, it's not like that. It's like your local newagent using technical
>>> measures to stop you from accessing competitor publications.
> 
>> "Sorry, we don't sell that publication" is a perfectly valid and legal 
>> phrase.
> 
>   You really like nitpicking, don't you? You do understand what I'm
> writing, but you are deliberately nitpicking, just for the sake of
> argument.

	Not at all. The assumption is that you're free to choose the ISP.

	Now in reality, there are few choices. To make your case (which as I
indicated, they may do in the years ahead), you have to establish that
it is either almost impossible to have enough ISP's for healthy
competition of services allowed, or you have to establish that because
of circumstances in the modern world, not having unfettered access to
the Internet will result in either a great deal of public harm (e.g.
getting way behind other nations) or a violation of an _existing_ right.
Currently, there are few legally defined rights that are related to the
Internet.


-- 
"The security of the Enterprise is of Paramount importance.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message