On 25 Sep 97 16:34, Jim Gashel wrote:
 JG> in this case I don't think we are
 JG> really talking about a matter of free
 JG> speech, since andy is perfectly free
 JG> to post the acb messages to any list
 JG> that would find them consistent with
 JG> its purposes.  in this case, i don't
This raises an interesting question -- one not particularly 
connected with NFB philosophy.  At least one court has ruled that 
free speech should be protected on the Internet more zealously 
than it is in other media because, in effect, it is now a 
"people's medium", to paraphrase the court ruling.  Specifically, 
the court was declaring that part of the 1996 Telecomm Act 
onconstitutional that subjected the Internet and ISPs to decency 
standards.
It should be noted, however, that this only applies to 
*government*.  Private entities, specifically ISPs, are perfectly 
free to censor what flows thru their T1 connections.  For example, 
no one enjoins ISPs to carry or not to carry certain Usenet 
newsgroups and Usenet FAQs specifically state this.  ISPs are 
perfectly entitled to block SPAM mail.  Not all do so, believing 
this opens cans of worms they would rather not deal with.  But 
others market themselves specifically *because* of their blocking 
of mail from certain sites and/or certain nesgroups.
What I'm driving at is this:  although some participants 
appropriate the cause of free speech when advocating a certain 
style of list conduct, it doesn't really apply -- at least, not 
yet -- to private entities runing listservs or carrying Usenet 
newsgroups.  It will be interesting to see where all this leads if 
courts broaden free speech protections to include enjoining ISPs 
from censoring mail or Usenet newsgroups.
Mike Freeman
--- PCRR QWK 1.60
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------