[116964] in Cypherpunks
Re: Cowards?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Reese)
Tue Aug 24 11:55:42 1999
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990823161058.00a0fba0@flex.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 16:10:58 -1000
To: Petro <petro@suba.com>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Reese <reeza@flex.com>
In-Reply-To: <v04205501b3e715954e30@[208.176.30.20]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Reese <reeza@flex.com>
You screwed up the quotes.
At 08:20 AM 23-08-99 -0700, Petro wrote:
>>Reese writes:
I wrote this,
>>> Amazon.com decided to not host a link on their page IIRC, something
>>> perfectly within their charter of license.
>>
>>> Figure, I post a sign says "no service to persons who engage in moral
>>> decrepitude." - then I define moral decrepitude - whatever the final
>>> definition may be.
>>
>>> Then, I find hard evidence you engage in above arbitrary definition of
>>> MD, and refuse service to you next time you enter my establishment. You
>>> Sue. My evidence stands up in court, is non-invasive, and does not
>>> violate your civil rights.
Someone else wrote this.
>>Hmmmmm. I think picking and choosing who you will do business with is
>>fine, if you are small, the service you offer isn't essential, and you are
>>not the only one providing it.
>>
>>When you're talking about big corporations, then discrimination based on
>>unalterable personal characteristics, or a perception of ones sexual
>>interests, or political beliefs, is probably not a good idea.
>>
>>What if Western Union announced you couldn't wire money if you were living
>>with a person of the opposite sex you were not married to? What if
>>Safeway said you couldn't buy food there if you criticized Israeli
>>politics? What if you couldn't rent a hotel room if you wore a nose ring?
>>What if it were the only hotel in town?
You wrote this.
> Interesting. So you are saying that wearing a nose ring is an
>"Unalterable personal characteristic", that "Living with someone of
>the opposite sex you are not married to" is an unalterable
>characteristic? That espousing a PARTICULAR political point of view
>is "unalterable".
>
> My, my what a fixed world you live in.
>
> Yes, I feel that a business, ANY business not granted a
>monopoly by the state should be able to refuse service to anyone for
>any reason.
>
> I also wouldn't do business with them. Especially if it was
>the case that they chose who to refuse service to purely on the basis
>of public pressure.
>
>>With 260,000 web sites linked to its order-processing servers, Amazon is
>>hardly in a position to declare that you can't be one of them if you think
>>that scholarly and fictional works heretical to the views of Dr. Laura
>>and Parade Magazine on certain topics should be available for people to
>>read.
>
> They were the first into a relatively new market. There are
>now others, and there will be more.
>
> Hell, people are still opening up local ISPs.
>
> Amazon is big, but not that big.
>
>>
>>When an entity that large gets to pick and choose its customers according
>>to its own definition of "moral decrepitude", we are all in deep shit.
>
> So? We've been in deep shit for years. If things like this
>were all we had to worry about, I'd sleep a fuckload easier.
I chose "moral decrepitude" because I knew it would be a hot potato, it
could just as easily have been "persons with dirty fingernails", "persons
who need a bath" or "persons who use profanity in public".
Don't read so much into it, it was just an example.
Reese
I want to run on any heavy fuel, so I can run cool,,,
