Xref: utzoo comp.misc:11435 comp.org.eff.talk:1458 alt.censorship:1235 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!exodus!randolph From: randolph@cognito.Eng.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Prodigy Special Offer hits my mailbox... Message-ID: <7909@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: 13 Feb 91 00:13:56 GMT References: <1991Feb6.141621.9765@javelin.es.com> <1991Feb11.061828.20234@looking.on.ca> <1991Feb12.223147.24215@looking.on.ca> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Followup-To: comp.misc Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed Lines: 54 Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship Subject: Re: Prodigy Special Offer hits my mailbox... Summary: Expires: References: <1991Feb6.141621.9765@javelin.es.com> <1991Feb11.061828.20234@looking.on.ca> <1991Feb12.223147.24215@looking.on.ca> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: St. Dismas Infirmary for the Incurably Informed Keywords: Brad, I respect your experience in this area, but -- you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) There, got that out. Part of what we're working out here is exactly what censorship means in the context of cyberspace. And we still don't know. So it's too early to say whether or not Prodigy is "censoring" -- we haven't worked out what censorship means here. From what I have read here, Prodigy appears to have hidden policies in addition to their stated policies. The hidden policies seem to involve control of user message content for Prodigy's commerical goals. If you don't like P's policies, and say so on their net, they cut you off outright, if you use a service in a way P doesn't intend they raise the price, and so on. It's difficult for me to seriously defend these practices; in other electronic media they have been outlawed in the USA. Without those laws, our telephone companies would strictly control what equipment is connected to the public telephone network (Carterfone decision). As with any public business, a commericial BBS has responsibilities to the public; just what those responsibilities are, and if they should be defended by law is not yet clear. It does seem clear to me that controlling message content on is anti-competitive -- after all, Prodigy was stifling criticism of their business practices by denying accounts. Content controls have at least the potential for becoming political censorship as well. One need only look at US television to realize that there is very definite censorship on the part of advertisers. I really have very little patience with this; do we really want our BBS's turned into another vast wasteland? If you want to debate this on the grounds of libertarian property rights theory, I would appreciate it if you pointed followups to talk.politics.theory, where I expect no resolution. Other than that, I hope we get lots of intelligent comments. nd t ou ui R Press T __Randolph Fritz sun!cognito.eng!randolph || randolph@eng.sun.com ou ui Mountain View, California, North America, Earth nd t