[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: Openlaw DMCA Forum <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 03:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> I think this is a really odd position, and it's the first one I can
> think of where I think the EFF is badly off base. I really don't see
> how voluntary action by ISP's to screen email from reaching recipients
> is a bad thing. The right to free speech does not imply a right to my
> attention, and I can employ whatever method I wish to dole out that
> attention, including outsourcing the decision making to my ISP.
> The anti-blacklist argument seems to be based on a non-existent right
> to not be ostrasized by private entitites.
A decision was made (behind closed doors and with many a greased palm) to
privatize the publicly developed entity known as the internet.
In privatization, the interexchanges and backbone channels were placed in
the hands of the few. And those few were given the power to silence the
many in a formerly public forum.
The EFF is right here just as Stallman is right about the GPL (as opposed
to the BSD license).
The freedom of the few must be sacrificed for the greater freedom of the
With the GPL, the few who distribute modified software lose the right to
distribute programs without source code but everyone gains the right to
receive source code for all of their programs.
The few who control networks give up your right to block the email of
others in exchange for gaining the right of all to have their email
I think the EFF is dead-on here and, quite frankly, I'm surprised.
Jeme A Brelin