Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Networks, who pays (Really: Libertarian Soap Boxing on INFO-FUTURES)
Summary: Morton Downey rides again!
Message-ID: <2260@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 18 Nov 88 11:39:15 GMT
References: <8811171559.AA11040@multimax.encore.com>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls
Lines: 32

In article <8811171559.AA11040@multimax.encore.com>, bzs@ENCORE.COM (Barry Shein) writes:
> 
> 
>  I will begin moderating the whole
> list and promise to toss such drivel in the can 

Doesn't this remind you of Morton Downey, Jr., who throws guests off his
show when they disagree with him? ... Or of the little, little boy in
the playground who says, "Play my way or I'll take my football
home!"?

The irony, of course, is that, after castigating human rights advocates
for defending proprietarianism, he now wants to exercise the ultimate
proprietary perogative.  

However, he does us a favor by proving the preferability of the pro-
freedom approach.  There *are* alternative ways for human rights
advocates to make their points, because computer networks are still
largely private.  But if Uncle Sam were to become heavily involved,
and wanted to exclude pro-choice comments from the net, that would
be that (just as anti-apartheid advocates can't get time on South
Africa's state-owned TV).  

So: personalities aside, would computing's future be better if
allowed to develop freely, or if controlled by the likes of Ed
Meese, Bert Lance, and Dan Quayle?

Jeff Daiell
-- 
  If a hungry man has water, and a thirsty man has bread,
  Then if they trade, be not dismayed, they both come out ahead.

                                   -- Don Paarlberg