> [...]
[ Here's a thought experiment. If a mall offered free telephone
service for their patrons around the mall, through handsets
placed at various locations, would similar restrictions be
acceptable? If a customer tried to call a local abortion clinic
or an "adult toys" store from one of those phones, would it be
reasonable for the system to cut in and say, "I'm sorry, we will
not complete your call as dialed, since we consider the business
you are calling to not meet our ethical standards -- CLUNK." ?
Is this fundamentally different from the Wi-Fi situation? Even
more to the point, what if you were trying to call a store in the mall
itself when this happened?
Continuing the thought experiment, must the free phone service provider
allow 900 calls to go through? Does the provider have no rights to
limit the service provided? Is it all or nothing?
Dave Kristol
[ 900 calls have an extra charge associated with them. Blocking
them would be entirely reasonable. The topic under discussion
is the blocking of destinations based largely on the "moral"
determinations of the party providing the service. Again, would
such phone call blocking of the sort I described above be
considered acceptable in any public contexts? My bet is that most
people would be outraged. So why is this any different than
blocking particular Wi-Fi sites that are engaged in legal
operations? I'd like a "pro-blocking" reader to address this
comparision directly, if you can.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
