Just say NYET to censors

[pstemari@bismark.cbis.com (Paul J. Ste. Marie)]

The fundemental flaw in the comparison of the various Internet and
Usenet based resources is that they are a communications exchanges
between various sources and sinks of information, not a single source.
In this they are more akin to the phone network than a TV station or a
major BBS such as CompuServe or AOL.

I'm quite sure that every parent has a long list of phone numbers s?he
would prefer h(is|er) children would not call, starting off with bars,
escort services, etc.  This is not a justification for a pre hoc
screening of every phone conversation by censors, nor is it a reason
to establish various restricted classes of service for telephones.
This is even more clear in the case of Internet/Usenet resources,
where each link is essentially a contractual relationship between the
computer owners involved.

If you want to establish a site that censors/restricts newsgroups,
limits ftp and telnet access, etc, that's just fine, but it is no
reason to restrict contractual relationships that don't involve you.
If you don't want to connect to a site that refuses to abide by your
restrictions, that's your call.  OTOH, don't expect the world to knock
down your door asking for censored newsfeeds, and don't think you have
some God-given right to insist that two sites independent of your own
abide by your restrictions.

In the case of the major backbone providers, eg uunet and psi, the
situation is a bit different.  These sites have a disproportionate
control of what passes between systems, and any attempt on their part
to restrict content would be disastorous.

	--Paul