Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks

On Or About:  6 Sep 96 at 18:04, E. Allen Smith wrote:

> list-managers list, a consent arrangement would thus be preferable. The
> other argument of the Cyber Promotions jerks is nonsense - how does AOL
> blocking affect the rest of the Internet?

It's affecting the rights of these fine spammers, Cyber Promotions.  
That affects spammers everywhere.  More rules by our government 
affects all of us.

> >PHILADELPHIA, Pa. (Sep 6, 1996 12:23 p.m. EDT) -- A federal judge has =
<<<<SNIP>>>>>
> >"We feel that America Online has violated the civil rights of their =
> >members and has violated our rights to send e-mail through the Internet, =
> >which AOL does not own," he said.
> 
> >Although unsolicited mail sent through the post office in the United =
> >States is not considered illegal, the rules have yet to be defined in =
> >cyberspace. 

That's the real point I have always made.  No rules and we should
not want rules.  Why are we INVITING the government into OUR
internet??? Just cause we have to read spam?  That is just plain
stupid!!!  Just cause we have to read spam, oh well, let the
government come on in. Do we let the government into our bedrooms
because our wife says no to sex tonight or because we don't like to
make our beds??  Everyone on this list seems to want to limit
government  intervention EXCEPT when it comes to spam, then every
one just holds the door open wide and let them in.  If they get that
inch, they WILL take the whole 9 YARDS!!!!!!  Get a clue, delete or
killfile those who spam and keep the government out of
cyberspace!!!!!!


By the way, I get about 2 or 3 spams a day in my mailbox and it is 
not killing me!  Don't get the wrong idea, I don't like it.  I like 
the government WAY LESS!!!!! 

===========
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: 415-206-9906

This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization,
has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
even for no reason at all. The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing
AOL to allow the spammers access.

--
http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
      Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die!
 I feel a groove comin' on             $              Freedom...yeah, right.

Damaged Justice wrote:
> 
> This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization,
> has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
> even for no reason at all. 

That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense
electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private
enterprise.

I take issue with the assumption that a carrier of the "internet postal
service" has the status of a "private individual or organization." I
think
that a corporation providing a mail delivery service might not be as
free as
a private individual is to set arbitrary limits on the services they
provide 
to their customers. Unlike the people who donate their time and
resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary
limits on the services 
they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so
easily 
removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide
services.

One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is
that
you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy
exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason 
whatsoever.

If the Internet is supposed to be some sort of postal service, and the
ISP's are supposed to be akin to carriers, who don't regulate content,
then I think its wrong for them to regulate the content of the mail
service that they provide, even in the case of junkmail. (Of course
ISP's may impose various network controls that may have the effect of
restricting mass mailings without discriminating against content per se.
However, it is naive to assume that many network controls will not have
some effect on content, simply because of a logical distinction between
network control and editorial control - how many times have you heard 
various thinkers complain that the TV network soundbite isn't enough to
sustain critical commentary, etc?)

>The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing
> AOL to allow the spammers access.

Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same
freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services 
they provide  - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business 
constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor 
junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another 
matter entirely.

I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of
some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad
consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence 
is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors 
of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private 
individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason 
whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard 
of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to 
act like petty dictators. 

> 
> --
> http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
>       Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die!
>  I feel a groove comin' on             $              Freedom...yeah, right.
> 

F Lengyel	flengyel@dorsai.org	http://www.dorsai.org/~flengyel

> > This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization,
> > has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
> > even for no reason at all. 
> 
> That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense
> electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private
> enterprise.

Perhaps that analogy held when the Internet was supported with money taken
at gunpoint from all us tax serfs. No more - you wanna play, you gotta pay.
Which is as it should be.

[snip]

 >Unlike the people who donate their time and
> resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary
> limits on the services 
> they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so
> easily 
> removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide
> services.

If their business suffers because of a decision, they may reconsider that
decision. If they don't, they'll either survive, or they won't, depending
on if their customers will stand for it. I fail to see why charging money
for the services one provides suddenly transforms a person into a slave,
forced to provide service even if they do not wish to do so. Do you feel
that providing a service for free is more "noble", somehow, and therefore
more "worthy" of protection?

> One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is
> that
> you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy
> exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason 
> whatsoever.

Who is going to "fire" a company that provides a service? The gubmint is
your only alternative; the gun of the law, your only tool.

If you don't like your ISP, get a different one. Spammers do it all the
time. People are whining all over the place about "exercising arbitrary
rights", as if it were eeeeevil when companies do it. Get a grip. It's
called DISCRIMINATION, and it's not a bad word; it's just been corrupted
beyond belief by the PC mindset. When I discriminate, I am exercising my
taste, my judgment, in deciding who I wish to associate with; who I wish
to give my money to in exchange for services; who I trust, and who I do
not. If a company kicks a spammer off their system, what recourse do you
want them to have, other than their right to "vote with their feet" and
find a different provider? It seems you would find it favorable for them
to go whining to the gubmint: "Waaah! He kicked us out of his treehouse!
You go beat 'em up and make 'em take us back!"

If they can seize John Adams' yacht, they can seize your beat-up old car.
If they can force XYZ Corp to provide access, they can force anyone to
do anything, and there is no grounds for complaint. After all, universal
access must be provided! A chicken in every pot, and a router in every
garage! Right?

> >The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing
> > AOL to allow the spammers access.
> 
> Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same
> freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services 
> they provide  - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business 
> constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor 
> junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another 
> matter entirely.

Because only the gummint can "censor". Whatever anyone else does is NOT
censorship, unless you want to redefine words to suit your pleasure. It
is exercising judgment and taste. Whether you find that judgment acceptable
or not is not an excuse to impose your judgment on others at gunpoint.

> I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of
> some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad
> consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence 
> is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors 
> of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private 
> individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason 
> whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard 
> of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to 
> act like petty dictators. 

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--
http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
why the dancing shouting   why the shrieks of pain  the lovely music  why the
smell of burning autumn leaves     working on the tiny blueprint of the angle
I must be silent must contain my secret smile  you my mirror you my iron bars

Damaged Justice wrote:
> 
> > > This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization,
> > > has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
> > > even for no reason at all.
> >
> > That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense
> > electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private
> > enterprise.
> 
> Perhaps that analogy held when the Internet was supported with money taken
> at gunpoint from all us tax serfs. No more - you wanna play, you gotta pay.
> Which is as it should be.
> 
> [snip]
> 
>  >Unlike the people who donate their time and
> > resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary
> > limits on the services
> > they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so
> > easily
> > removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide
> > services.
> 
> If their business suffers because of a decision, they may reconsider that
> decision. If they don't, they'll either survive, or they won't, depending
> on if their customers will stand for it. 

My point exactly

I fail to see why charging money
> for the services one provides suddenly transforms a person into a slave,
> forced to provide service even if they do not wish to do so. 

Non-sequiteur.

Do you feel
> that providing a service for free is more "noble", somehow, and therefore
> more "worthy" of protection?

Non-sequiteur.
> 
> > One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is
> > that
> > you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy
> > exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason
> > whatsoever.
> 
> Who is going to "fire" a company that provides a service? The gubmint is
> your only alternative; the gun of the law, your only tool.

You provide the answer that I had in mind:
> 
> If you don't like your ISP, get a different one. Spammers do it all the
> time. 

> People are whining all over the place about "exercising arbitrary
> rights", as if it were eeeeevil when companies do it. Get a grip. 

Non sequiteur. You're not responding to my point, which is a moral 
criticism of the tone of statements like 

> > > any private individual or organization,
> > > has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
> > > even for no reason at all.

which seem to oversimplify matters for corporations like AOL. Of course
AOL
can repeat statements like these to its customers until it was blue in
the 
face, but the good news is that their customers could vote with their
feet. 
My criticism of your statement is that it an aethetically ugly and
hippocritical position to take, if one purports to provide mail services 
to hundreds of thousands of customers, or purports not to engage in 
editorial control, or purports to promote free speech. If ISP's want
to provide services subject to arbitary limitations fine ... I am
stating that
I find this practice deplorable, and I have not implied that I favor
government
regulation to correct such situations, as much as you want to believe
that I have.

> If a company kicks a spammer off their system, what recourse do you
> want them to have, other than their right to "vote with their feet" and
> find a different provider? 

None.

> It seems you would find it favorable for them
> to go whining to the gubmint: "Waaah! He kicked us out of his treehouse!
> You go beat 'em up and make 'em take us back!"

That's an overinterpretation of my words.

> If they can seize John Adams' yacht, they can seize your beat-up old car.
> If they can force XYZ Corp to provide access, they can force anyone to
> do anything, and there is no grounds for complaint. After all, universal
> access must be provided! A chicken in every pot, and a router in every
> garage! Right?

Non sequiteur.
> 
> > >The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing
> > > AOL to allow the spammers access.
> >
> > Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same
> > freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services
> > they provide  - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business
> > constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor
> > junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another
> > matter entirely.
> 
> Because only the gummint can "censor". Whatever anyone else does is NOT
> censorship, unless you want to redefine words to suit your pleasure. It
> is exercising judgment and taste. Whether you find that judgment acceptable
> or not is not an excuse to impose your judgment on others at gunpoint.

What dictionary do you use?
 
> > I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of
> > some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad
> > consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence
> > is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors
> > of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private
> > individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason
> > whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard
> > of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to
> > act like petty dictators.
> 
> Pot. Kettle. Black.

I see you've looked in the mirror recently :) 
> 
> --
> http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
> why the dancing shouting   why the shrieks of pain  the lovely music  why the
> smell of burning autumn leaves     working on the tiny blueprint of the angle
> I must be silent must contain my secret smile  you my mirror you my iron bars

F Lengyel	flengyel@dorsai.org	http://www.dorsai.org/~flengyel

If AOL wants to stop spammers, let them. They have every right to do so as
long as their agreement with their customers permits it. It's a matter of
contract law between AOL and its customers and should not involve the
spammers and a lawsuit brought by the spammers.

It seems as though the judge was snookered by the spammers' claim of U.S. 
Mail-like service, free speech, blah. The right to free speech does 
extend to corporations; in that way, it includes the right *not* to speak.

-Declan


On Fri, 6 Sep 1996, Damaged Justice wrote:

> 
> This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization,
> has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or
> even for no reason at all. The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing
> AOL to allow the spammers access.
> 
> --
> http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
>       Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die!
>  I feel a groove comin' on             $              Freedom...yeah, right.
>  
> 


// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //