[42535] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: On Internet and social responsibility
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Mon Sep 17 17:03:27 2001
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <David.Charlap@marconi.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:34:23 -0700
In-Reply-To: <3BA64CF7.34A82E2B@marconi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <20010917203424.AAA14990@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:20:23 -0400, David Charlap wrote:
>David Schwartz wrote:
>> Because if American companies want to spread the speech of=
foreign
>>terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United=
States should
>>not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
>Without stating an opinon on whether or not it is right to=
shutdown these
>sites, let me point out two things that you seem to be=
forgetting:
>1: The courts have repeatedly held that incite to riot is not a=
form of
>protected speech. A logical inference here is that incite to=
war is not
>protected either.
=09If the speech creates an immediate threat of inciting lawless=
action, the
originator of the speech can be held responsible. Under current=
U.S. law as I
understand it, the provider is immunized against liability for=
this. (There
is currently a defect in U.S. law here.)
>2: The US Constitution does not guarantee the rights of=
non-citizens
>residing in foreign nations. Even if they buy a web page from a=
US
>hosting service.
=09This argument doesn't wash. The originator of the content is=
irrelevant.
What is relevant is that United States company wishes to=
'publish' the
speech. This argument, if accepted, would mean that a United=
States publisher
wouldn't be guaranteed the right to publish a book if the author=
was a
foreigner. Heck, the bible wouldn't be protected speech by this=
argument!
=09DS
