[governance] Net neutrality: Definitions

[Eric Dierker]

I think there is an interesting headliner going round in the US that directly 
addresses this issue in reality.  A talk show host used language that is a no no 
but perfectly legal.  She is basically quitting after decades.  She is not 
banned or forced to quit. She has other endeavors to move into.

The censorship came from sponsors of her show. They pulled out -- makes no $$$$ 
difference to this gal, her ratings are up.  But she just does not want to deal 
with the megacorp censorship by sponsorship crap anymore.  It does remind us 
that government has far less to do with truly free speech than does business.

(for reference it is some lady known as Dr. Laura)




________________________________
From: Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 8:38:06 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:02:30PM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wrot
> On 08/17/2010 03:22 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) 
>wro
> 
> >>>>I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice.
> >>>>So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental
> >>>>("public") operators.
> >
> >is an overstatement.
> 
> Really?  So I would be prohibited from throwing the power switch on
> my web server or router?  And I would be prohibited from not paying
> my domain name bill and letting my domain name lapse?

No. But your statement above implies you could revoke access to an
individual selectively for any reason whatsoever, and that is not true
if you are doing business here (Finland/Europe).

Of course you can quit doing business if you want and if you're
acting as a private individual in personal capacity, you are
not bound by laws regulating businesses.
Ditto for non-commercial associations (although even those have
some more restrictions than individuals).

> The intrusion on personal choice that you are suggesting is, at
> least to ears of this Californian, rather draconian and contrary to
> the concept of freedom of association (an aspect of free speech
> which is to say the right to not speak to those to whom you do not
> wish to speak.)

In most of Europe (and indeed most of the world, I believe), freedom
of speech is rather heavily limited when it comes to commercial activity.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100818/d877c3f4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t