Jonathan Schmidt wrote:

It deserves debate because it is a slippery slope.

My thinking too.

 The "Yelling
'fire' in a theater" or talking (or with a virtual bribe) someone
into a crime is at one end that is generally agreed upon as
undesirable for a society, sufficiently undesirable to prohibit it.
Yes, both of these are a crime. IIRC yelling "Yelling 'fire' in a theater" is a crime if someone gets hurt from it. If no one gets hurt (and the police/fire department are not called) this is a non crime but in bad taste. If the police/fire department are called then (again, if I remember this right) it becomes filing a false police report. If the website was saying "lets go kill the purple people eaters" and suggesting that it is ok "because they are purple" then I agree the site should have been shut down with a single C&D letter.

What's at the other in this country and in others?

Where's the middle?

What is the middle and who does anything about it and, if so, what?
Good questions, I sure do not have the answers.

What works well and what offers the best protection against a repressive
Revolution every so often?

It deserves the same attention to debate today as it did when the
Bill of Rights was drafted.
I think more so now. We are coming to a point where people are saying Internet access is a right not a service, to me that
should mean that it needs to have the same rights as we do in public.

. . . j o n a t h a n

-----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 6:00 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Class: How to stomp Internet Freedom 101

It does to a degree. I did not realize that (Canadian only?) FTA: "The
Human Rights Act prohibits the communication of messages
over the Internet likely to expose people to hatred or contempt based on
religion or race."

WOW that is "over the top". What next, No saying hateful things in
public at all? The world is a lot worse off then I realized.
Think I will go sue all those twits (and their ISPs) on IRC that keep
calling me a Cracker (Ignoring that my nick is Crackers`n`Soup)


Mark Koskenmaki wrote:

I hope this is no surprise to you... but Canada doesn't have freedom of
speech, nor does the UK, nor much of Europe.

So, let's not get too wrapped up in "internet freedom of speech" because it
exists only in a fragile way, here in the US.

We have our own self-appointed censors... YOu'll find them applauding the
decision in Canada, and then publishing articles critical of banning kiddy

Go figure.

North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:19 PM
Subject: [WISPA] Class: How to stomp Internet Freedom 101

Is it me or is this out of line? I thought all "free" countries had
settled this
in their respective courts already?

WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



WISPA Wireless List:



Reply via email to