[IP] Re: Nothing like prior constraint. No courts just NetSol!!! Internet company suspends politician's website over Qur'an film

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: DV Henkel-Wallace [gumby@henkel-wallace.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 10:06 PM
To: David Farber; steve@shinkuro.com
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    Nothing like prior constraint. No courts just NetSol!!! Internet company suspends politician's website over Qur'an film

Dave, Steve raises a fascinating issue.  Wilders' site pretty clearly
falls into USA's definition of "allowable speech", as do his other
examples (The nazis are the famous ones but yes, even advocacy of the
infamous "CP" is "protected speech") -- but there are plenty of
inverse examples (the swiss case that it is not illegal to violate
another country's tax laws or, dare I say it, advocacy of the
Netherlands' cderiminalisation of drugs).

More interestingly: all this is moot in that Netsol is a private
entity so there isn't a protection of free speech issue (in the USA)
at all -- they can make their own rules, and clearly do.

-d




> From: Steve Crocker [steve@shinkuro.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 7:17 PM
> To: David Farber
> Cc: Steve Crocker; ip
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Nothing like prior constraint. No courts
> just NetSol!!! Internet company suspends politician's website over
> Qur'an film
>
> Of course, protection of expression regarding the Qur'an is only one
> part of the overall equation.  Sale of Nazi memorabilia, child porn,
> phishing and other phenomena also draw attention and create calls for
> controlling content or finding out the identity of the purveyor.
> Your formula of limiting action unless it violates the laws of the
> home country doesn't address the issue of significant differences
> among countries.


-------------------------------------------