In message <19990522152208.AAA3699@LOCALNAME>, Kerry Miller writes:
'>>' means: Willie whined:
>> Freedom of speech is a right of people to speak with no government
>> restrictions.
Actually, Willie, it is the right to be able to speak without any
restrictions and without any fear of any recrimination.
But then, as I said before, what would you know?
>> There is no obligation for private parties to permit unrestricted
>> access/speech on forums they operate. If they do, it is merely a
>> courtesy, and can be revoked at any time for any reason.
Please, Willie, please, I beg you, don't take my Internet privileges
away, please!!
> Is that why the rush to get the Net privatized, and why ATTs take
> over of American connectivity is not being blocked?
Kerry, Willie is just an idiot, nothing else.
> Once that nasty 'government' (which of course is nothing but
> 'restrictions') is out of the picture, who needs to include
> 'freedom' -- or 'neutral' 'disinterested,' 'non-commercial' and so
> on -- in any *real organizational vocabulary?
Actually, I disagree. USG has not regulated the Internet (at least not
in the sense we discuss here) which is a cooperative effor anyway. As
in it ain't broke. So we don't need to fix it.
But as I wrote in the first skirmishes of the Domain Wars that this is
a license to print money and when the sharks smell blood there is just
nothing we can do about it.
el
