On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 09:31:59 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:


"Walt Davidson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 18:19:18 -0500, "Dee Flint"
wrote:

An ISP is a private entity and does not have to allow it even if it is
legal. When you sign up with an ISP, you are entering into a contract and
agreeing to its terms and conditions. If the ISP says no hate speech,
then
they can legally pull the page or sight and even cancel the user's service
due to violating the contract.

I think you may find it cannot, if by so doing it breaches the First
Amendment.

In the UK, a contract is not legally binding if it contains something
that is illegal. (In the USA, YMMD.)

73 de G3NYY

P.S. It's a "site", not a "sight".

--
Walt Davidson Email: g3nyy @despammed.com


Don't get caught up in the "spelling" wars. I noticed that my fingers had
typed the wrong one just after I hit the send button.

Free speech has never meant that a person can say whatever they want,
wherever they want, whenever they want. There are many laws defining what
you can and cannot do. For example, I can stand on a public sidewalk (i.e.
publicly owned properties) handing out flyers all I want to so long as I am
not doing anything illegal. On the other hand, if I want to hand them out
in the shopping center (i.e. privately owned, not paid for by tax dollars),
I must have the permission of the shopping center owner/management. The
subject of the flyers is irrelevant. Our tax dollars do not pay for the ISP
and so as a private entity they can limit usage of their service.

A business can legally prevent its employees from handing out political
material (campaign buttons, flyers, etc) on its premises. If they have such
a policy (and this has been clearly published to its employees), they can
fire an employee for doing so and it does not violate the employee's right
to freedom of speech.

To really understand the First Amendment and what freedom of speech really
means, one needs to study it in the context of history. It had been a
common practice for governments and rulers to throw people in jail simply
for criticizing the government or even simply disagreeing with its policies.
The First Amendment was crafted to protect people from being jailed for such
and to enable and even encourage open discussion and debate on issues. It
was not intended to protect libel, slander, fraud, speech encouraging
violence, etc. Nor was it intended to force people to listen to someone
else's free speech. If someone comes on my lawn and starts making a speech,
I can call the police and have him escorted off. Freedom of speech does not
allow him to force me to listen or to use my property.

The extent to which freedom of speech applies is endlessly debated and the
amendment endlessly interpreted. All that people can really agree on is
that it was not intended to allow an "anything goes" type of approach. They
cannot agree on what it does cover however.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


The only thing the constitution says about free speech is that
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press...

Beyond that, our citizenry does a pretty good job of abridging each
others' speech, as you pointed out in your post :-)

bob
k5qwg