Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 14:57:09 -0800 (PST) From: invalid opcode <coredump@nervosa.com> To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: the following is from cu-digest Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960229144943.26195F-100000@nervosa.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-- CUT HERE ------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 12:57:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Lassen <jlassen@MINDCRIME.AX.COM> Subject: File 6--ISP's and Common Carrier status (A response to Mr. Townson) >there is no prohibition >against you starting your own newspaper to print it instead. An ISP >who takes a responsible approach and refuses service to any variety >of clients -- Patrick Townson Seems to be missing an important point here. ISPs are not Newspapers. They are not even Content providers. They are Common Carriers. As soon as an ISP starts deciding who and what they will carry, they make themselves liable for everything that originates, or passes through their system. Mr. Townson says to this What a cop out! What a damn cop out!!!! This is not a cop out'. his is a smart and necessary business decision. One of the major On line providers (Prodigy, I think) was FOUND LIABLE for a user's post BECAUSE THEY CLAIM TO CONTROL AND REGULATE what goes on their system. The judge ruled that the service provider did not have common carrier status because of this. >From a legal standpoint, the moment ISP's decide they will not carry something, they are saying they are responsible for everything they do carry, including e-mail, public posts, FTP sights, Websights, etc.... If Mr. Townson wants to publish a newspaper, electronic or otherwise, he can decide what he wants to carry. But If he wants to be a common carrier (ISP), And have the protection that the law provides for common carriers, He can not simply block a certain group, or person because he finds their politics or ideology offensive. This is not a cop out. THIS IS THE LAW! Neo-Nazi's use the telephone system. Should AT&T refuse to allow them to use the phones, just because they don't agree with what the Neo-Nazi's are saying? Of course not. In fact, they could be sued if they tried to do so. The bottom line is, If an ISP is willing to take responsibility for EVERYTHING that comes and goes through its system, then by all means, refuse to carry and propagate any offensive material, BUT if they want common carrier protection, they can not pick and choose what they will and will not carry. There is a legal precedent for this. I think all ISP's should keep this in mind before they start refusing to carry things. ISP's are not content providers, and they are not publishers. They are common carriers. Aside from any questions of liability, The best response to Mr. Townson was made by Voltaire, hundreds of years ago -- I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Keep talking Mr. Townson. Just because I find your blatant disregard for the first amendment offensive, If I were your ISP, I would not prohibit you from using my service, nor would I refuse to propagate any messages of yours that passed through my system. ------------------------------ == Chris Layne ============================================================= == coredump@nervosa.com ================ http://www.nervosa.com/~coredump ==
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.960229144943.26195F-100000>