- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,181
Although there are no First Amendment issues at play here (e.g. there is no government censorship going on), it is still, in my opinion, a slippery slope to say, "they deserve to be blocked because they have [xxx] on there." It reminds me of a Clarance Darrow quote that I love:When corporate entities start deciding what is appropriate for their customers to view/see, and they do so without being straightforward about it, I become concerned. I have no problem with an ISP saying, "we provide internet access, but only to sites that meet our criteria."
If a customer wants to surf under those constraints, then fine.
As far as I'm concerned, blocking a site that has illegal content is perfectly legit. If everything that goes on on 4chan was legal I would be bashing Verizon endlessly and signing a contract with AT&T and Comcast, but lets face it, that is not even close to the case.






















