[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> In <[email protected]>, on 06/04/97
> at 08:40 AM, Jim Choate <[email protected]> said:
>
> >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.
>
> I think that your analogy is slightly flawed.
That's one way of putting it ... :)
>
> While the farmers have a right to protest on the side of the road they do
> not have a right to interfere with the travelers on the road.
>
> There is no real way you could picket on the "Info highway" as you have no
> right to interfere with the packets traveling on the highway. You can
> stand of to the side if you want but somehow I don't think that the
> packets will be watching. :)
>
Not to mention that the government hasn't owned any of the "backbone
cables" for many years now. Maybe Jim's on a different 'net.
I've seen some strange arguements on this list over the years, but this
one definately ranks. I'm in favor of the right to freedom of speech,
even for Jim, but he seems to want the right to *force* everyone to
listen to him *before* being permitted to listen to anyone else.
Seems that Jim wants the *right* to make me listen, not the right to speak.
-MarsupialMonger