Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

I don't have the references but I have seen some proposals that ISPs be 
forced to use MAPS. But the problem with your statement that "if the EFF wants the government to force ISP's not to use MAPS, then this 
also violates free speech (their client's right to select what speech is 
received)." is that when the ISPs use maps their clients (ME) don't get the right to 
recieve what speech is recieved. Neither does the ISP ever tell me when it 
makes changes in what MAPS sites it blocks. (although the alternative of 
having the ISPs provide user MAP lists at their servers doesn't look like 
a viable alternative). 




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/19/01 11:07 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers



--- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:

> So what is spam? Without a good definition, only nonsensical laws can be 

> written 

I didn't actually see what law the EFF was for or against. They speak out
against MAPS, which as best I can tell is a completely private 
intitiative. Did
I miss something?

If the government is proposing mandating ISP use MAPS then I oppose such a 
law
as violating free speech. Conversely if the EFF wants the government to 
force
ISP's not to use MAPS, then this also violates free speech (their client's
right to select what speech is received).




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com