nanog mailing list archives
Re: On Internet and social responsibility
From: David Charlap <David.Charlap () marconi com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:20:23 -0400
David Schwartz wrote:
Because if American companies want to spread the speech of foreign terrorists, that's their right. The government of the United States should not be prosecuting them for the content of their speech.
Without stating an opinon on whether or not it is right to shutdown these sites, let me point out two things that you seem to be forgetting: 1: The courts have repeatedly held that incite to riot is not a form of protected speech. A logical inference here is that incite to war is not protected either. 2: The US Constitution does not guarantee the rights of non-citizens residing in foreign nations. Even if they buy a web page from a US hosting service. -- David
Current thread:
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility, (continued)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility measl (Sep 15)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility Matt Levine (Sep 15)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility measl (Sep 15)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility measl (Sep 15)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility Roeland Meyer (Sep 15)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility Greg Mirsky (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility measl (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility Vadim Antonov (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility Randy Bush (Sep 17)
- Re: On Internet and social responsibility bmanning (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility David Schwartz (Sep 17)
- Re: On Internet and social responsibility David Charlap (Sep 17)
- Re: On Internet and social responsibility David Schwartz (Sep 17)
- Re: On Internet and social responsibility Joel Baker (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility Dan Hollis (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility David Schwartz (Sep 17)
- RE: On Internet and social responsibility measl (Sep 17)