[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
Hi,
Forwarded message:
> Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 09:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Declan McCullagh <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
> Jim's fundamental misunderstanding below seems to be, as far as I can
> tell, confusing public funding with public forums.
What is amazing is your denying there is any sort of connection at all. I am
not claiming that they are 1-to-1 as you would have readers believe but
rather one brings along certain rights for the user from the other area.
One of those rights is going to be protection of their civil liberties. Your
tacit assertion that simply because some resource receives public money does
not affect the civil or criminal aspect at all is also misleading.
> Just because an entity
> receives most, or all, of its funding from the state does not mean that
> that entity or the service that entity provides becomes a public forum for
> the purposes of First Amendment analysis.
BUT, and you seem unable to grasp this important concept, its users DO
receive such extra protection over and above a solely private resource.
This means that communictions BETWEEN said users will ALSO gain that
protection. Now it seems plain to me that if the reader sends a packet over
that network link, the server sends a packet over that same network in
responce a third party on that link with a CIVIL interest in the content of
that exchange may be able to force a minimal level of communications because
they ALSO use that link and have a vested interest in what the server is
sending over that link publicly.
> After all, many research
> universities receive half their revenues from Federal grants but they do
> not become public fora. I suppose part of the analysis in this case might
> turn on whether the state is setting up such networks itself and "owning"
> them or whether it's providing grants to a private entity.
If the government owns the link, say between Salt Lake and Chicago, wholely
then there is most definitely a comparison to be made. Even if the funding
is only partial that still brings along additional contractual obligations
for the operators in regards to civil rights and legal protections.
I could see them taking the end-point servers over on national security
grounds (like civilian airport radio equipment or the telephone) in regards
to breeches or damages against the servers. Shoot, they could integrate them
into the EBS (or whatever they are calling it this week). That could mean
that ANY hacking that was carried would automaticaly involve the government
on national security grounds ("Damn, I wish I hadn't changed my password
without writing it down!..."). THAT is just way too Red Scare for me.
> Again, the Internet is not a public street.
Yes, and your point? It can't be that a specific backbone cable between two
cities owned by the government is equivalent to the Internet in toto, even
conceptualy. Because it is clear that such a construct is equivalent to the
publicly funded highway running between the same cities, and you most
definitely CAN picket on a highway easment legaly. I have seen farm workers
in Texas do it my entire life. The Info-Highway comparison goes a LOT
farther than most people seem to have taken it. I personaly, don't think we
should go there in the case of communications technology.
_______________________________________________________________________
| |
| Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. |
| |
| Slovenian Proverb |
| |
| Jim Choate [email protected] |
| The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com |
| Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 |
|_______________________________________________________________________|