Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	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 category is "common carrier".

> 	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.

I don't think it's appropriate for private enterprises. Enterprises granted 
regional monopoly status by the government should be forced to not 
discriminate, because you've just removed the market forces.

And for the same reason the USA has the First Amendment, I'd suggest it's 
probably a good idea to force a business to either be a carrier or a 
provider of information, but not allow a business to be both.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message