Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ra!Ra.MsState.Edu!fwp1 From: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu (Frank Peters) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Censorship on the USENET Message-ID: Date: 5 Nov 90 17:01:41 GMT References: <1990Nov01.064916.19218@looking.on.ca> <1990Nov02.044428.2834@looking.on.ca> <1990Nov2.141012.25200@ncs <1990Nov05.033218.21980@ddsw1.MCS.COM> lush@EE.MsState.Edu (Edward Luke) writes: [... A long thread attempting to define censorship deleted ...] Ok, ok, who cares what you call it. As an individual I can not afford to pay for a nationwide (worldwide) net by myself, but I CAN pay a part of it's operational expenses. The problem is, if part of the 'net' I use to get a message from me to you is owned by the government, and as an individual I can not afford to get the message to you via any other route, then government control of the CONTENT of the messages going through it's 'net' has the SAME EFFECT as CENSORSHIP simply because I have no other options but to use the government net. (I can not afford to create another net myself.) For this reason I find the position 'He who has the gold, makes the rules' a very dangerous one. How about a rewording. If you wanna use MY gold you play by my rules. Now if you wanna use someone elses gold then that is between you and them. Your analogy with the post office breaks down in that post office was created as a general purpose communications path with no specific charter about what it would be used for. The main problem here is that we insist on using a network created by the government for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE (support of research) as a general purpose communications path. I think the government has a right to decide how far use of their network may diverge from its stated purpose before that usage becomes inappropriate. Mind you, I may not agree with that decision or the motives used to reach it. But I do agree with the right to make that decision. And there are alternatives. MCI offers email connectivity to subscribers that doesn't use government network equipment (though it does gateway to that equipment). So does Compuserve. And I believe uunet is attempting to establish a network backbone on a commercial basis. So one alternative is to create, like the phone system, a network backbone of some sort that is privately funded and supported by a fee to users. Another alternative is to create a government sponsored network that, like the postal service, has no specific charter. Such a network should not be under the control of the NSF. Ed Luke Mississippi State University lush@ee.msstate.edu FWP -- -- Frank Peters Internet: fwp1@CC.MsState.Edu Bitnet: FWP1@MsState Phone: (601)325-2942 FAX: (601)325-8921