Warp wrote:
>   Everybody seems to know that it's completely legal and not in violation
> of any human rights that ISPs can freely choose how they filter content
> and what part of the internet they will sell to who.
> 
>   Question: If this is indeed so, then why are the directives allowing this
> being in the process of admission in the first place? What do they need the
> directives for if the filtering is already legal and allowed?

	Valid question - one that I don't have the answer for. I wondered the
same thing when net neutrality was debated in the US. A cursory reading
shows that if ISP's are considered telecommunications companies (which I
think they currently aren't), then they're not allowed to discriminate.

	Which indicates that in the US, such rules are not intended for the
whole society (i.e. all private enterprises), but only to certain
categories (which was what I was referring to under "public good").

	The crux of my arguments in this whole thread was that the legal
position is not unambiguous or clear. Ultimately, society or the
government may rule that it is vital to the public good and make sure
this can't happen - but there's no generic law that's valid for all
private enterprises.

-- 
If a pig lost it's voice, would it become disgruntled?


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

Post a reply to this message