On 5/19/06, Charles HOPE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Meade wrote:

This seems weasely. Why not admit that it is regulation for the Good Cause of Protecting the Internet from Evil?


I guess because the reason Net Neutrality is important to me is because it would prevent "powers that be" from taking action contrary to rights I already have.  To me thats not about regulaiton its about the legal affirmation of a requirements already expected ... that my rights wont get stepped on for someone elses profit. 

If I wrote a law that says "you cant kill a stranger because he's smiling" ...  Sure it official limits your right to kill because someone is smiling ... but youre already not supposed to kill someone ... you go ahead and call that regulation if you want ... but that seems weasely to me.

Another interesting debate on definition would be "The People" ... I guess I'm not willing consider huge corporate conglomerates as "The People" ... and therefore refuse to consider Net Neutrality as a regulation of The People.

The standard distinction is drawn between public and private entities. You're using nonstandard terminology. What's wrong with the typical language?

I am not now nor have I ever claimed to be a lawyer.  I'm the average american speaking from the hip.  When average americans get up in arms about a threat to The People ... they're talking about ... well ... people ... who vote. 

--
http://www.DavidMeade.com
feed:  http://www.DavidMeade.com/feed

SPONSORED LINKS
Fireant Individual Typepad
Use Explains


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to