*edit*
OK,
I should take a different take on this discussion, because the old line of thinking
is hitting a dead end.
First, lets state right off, that this isn't 100% censorship vs. 100% free speech.
Both censorship advocates and free speech advocates are not on the extremes, at
least the thoughtful ones are not.
A good example of not being on the extreme's are the ISP end user agreements.
You can take a company on one side of the equation, like Comcast, a cable
monopolist who has entered the internet arena...who writes
a very restrictive end-user agreement, based on their principles as a monopolist,
that pretty much just goes down the list of things they are going to deny, and
outlines harsh penalties for violating the agreement...and then
you can go to some of the larger ISP's that were started by internet pioneers...
our peers...our brothers...and you see a very different type of end user agreement.
They are not exact opposites, however. Both agreements recognize some speech will
occur, and both agreement recognize some types of activities are absolutely
illegal. But there are 'subtle' differences, that turn out to be real differences.
One...(hint comcast) might sell you down the river for a buck, and the others,
might even go so far as to stand in the transom and protect your privacy rights
with their own attorney's and fight an RIAA subpoena.
Now, back to our little virtual community. Of course, illegal speech is going to
be banned. Of course, some speech is going to take place and be allowed.
That isn't the question, as much as some here, would like to pretend that is the
question.
The question is, really, what type of community do we want. One more aligned with
freedom, or one more aligned with restrictions?
I'm not even going to try to be more specific until the conversation turns from
the shrill level it usually is....and maybe it will never shift from the shrill
level...
