Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: On Internet and social responsibility
From: David Schwartz <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:34:23 -0700

On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:20:23 -0400, David Charlap wrote:

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.

        If the speech creates an immediate threat of inciting lawless action, the
originator of the speech can be held responsible. Under current U.S. law as I
understand it, the provider is immunized against liability for this. (There
is currently a defect in U.S. law here.)

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.

        This argument doesn't wash. The originator of the content is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that  United States company wishes to 'publish' the
speech. This argument, if accepted, would mean that a United States publisher
wouldn't be guaranteed the right to publish a book if the author was a
foreigner. Heck, the bible wouldn't be protected speech by this argument!


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]