The ISPs are not publishers any more than cab drivers are manufacturers of human beings. Sure, people are constantly observed getting out of cabs, but they also get into cabs somewhere else. The Fed Ex trucks that deliver books to bookstores are not the publishers, they are carriers that are hired to deliver what the publishers have produced. ISPs do not create any of the content being conveyed, so there is no way that they can be considered "publishers". If they want editorial control, they need to assume legal responsibility for each and every packet that crosses their network - in terms of malware, slander, libel, threats of violence, child pornography, breach of trade secrets, and hurtful gossip.
How exactly is inhibiting other people's speech a form of free speech on their part? Does the USPS, FedEx, or UPS reserve the right to open the packages they carry and change their prices and amount of time for delivering the packages based on the message content, or based on the recipient's or sender's name or income level? Ones and zeroes are the same to the pipe-monger regardless of who the sender or recipient are and how much money they have: their job is simply to carry them from one to the other.
This is simply the telcos and cable monopolies wanting to get paid more for delivering mail to rich folks, and to get paid twice for each delivery. It's time to end their legal monopolies once and for all.
The amendments of the constitution apply to the US government, not people. They are limits on the power of the government with respect to "the people", not "citizens" - so everyone should be protected from the US by them equally, regardless of what nation they call their own. The only time the constitution is irrelevant is when the US government is not involved in any way.
It's pretty outrageous that the US is trying to charge someone living in another nation with breaking its laws, when that person was never in the US at the time of the alleged violations. It's a violation of laws in India and Saudi Arabia for me to make statements about Jesus and Mohammed being gay, pork-eating lovers that invented their respective religions as a practical joke, yet you don't see either of those nations trying to have me extradited from the US to face justice in those countries. Why should the converse be true?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by chilehead.
publishing?
The ISPs are not publishers any more than cab drivers are manufacturers of human beings. Sure, people are constantly observed getting out of cabs, but they also get into cabs somewhere else. The Fed Ex trucks that deliver books to bookstores are not the publishers, they are carriers that are hired to deliver what the publishers have produced. ISPs do not create any of the content being conveyed, so there is no way that they can be considered "publishers". If they want editorial control, they need to assume legal responsibility for each and every packet that crosses their network - in terms of malware, slander, libel, threats of violence, child pornography, breach of trade secrets, and hurtful gossip.
How exactly is inhibiting other people's speech a form of free speech on their part? Does the USPS, FedEx, or UPS reserve the right to open the packages they carry and change their prices and amount of time for delivering the packages based on the message content, or based on the recipient's or sender's name or income level? Ones and zeroes are the same to the pipe-monger regardless of who the sender or recipient are and how much money they have: their job is simply to carry them from one to the other.
This is simply the telcos and cable monopolies wanting to get paid more for delivering mail to rich folks, and to get paid twice for each delivery. It's time to end their legal monopolies once and for all.
Re: Re: Hello, Sixth Amendment?
The amendments of the constitution apply to the US government, not people. They are limits on the power of the government with respect to "the people", not "citizens" - so everyone should be protected from the US by them equally, regardless of what nation they call their own. The only time the constitution is irrelevant is when the US government is not involved in any way.
It's pretty outrageous that the US is trying to charge someone living in another nation with breaking its laws, when that person was never in the US at the time of the alleged violations. It's a violation of laws in India and Saudi Arabia for me to make statements about Jesus and Mohammed being gay, pork-eating lovers that invented their respective religions as a practical joke, yet you don't see either of those nations trying to have me extradited from the US to face justice in those countries. Why should the converse be true?