Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!life!kingdon From: kingdon@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Jim Kingdon) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Missing mission Message-ID: Date: 26 Aug 90 16:07:18 GMT References: <11446@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1990Aug26.063940.29357@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> Sender: news@ai.mit.edu Organization: I see no organization here. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu's message of 26 Aug 90 06:39:40 GMT Spaf writes: Perhaps the posters have a right to write what they wish -- but should they have the right to use other people's machines and networks to spread it? Ofer Inbar writes: Why shouldn't the elctronic world be public, just as the real world is? Why shouldn't the cost of keeping network links up be a part of the function of government, just as the cost of maintainig roads is today? Well, the general position of the EFF is that electronic media should be able to take advantage of the same kinds of safeguards that are present for other media (print more so than TV). And in print "Freedom of the press only applies to those who own the presses." And that's probably the way I'd want it. Getting the government to take over everything means you are stuck with what they give you--if you want to get a faster link, or deal with a net which is losing packets, you have to deal with some bureaucrat. But whether government ownership of the nets is good isn't the issue as much as whether freedom implies government ownership, and I think the answer to the latter question is "no".