Buzz Out Loud Lounge: Counter argument to holding ISP's liable for content
Counter argument to holding ISP's liable for content
by ftngrave - 11/10/09 1:06 PMPlaying the devil's advocate
The argument is what if I lived in a remote area and the only way for me to work is to use the Internet. In addition to work, I pirate MP3 files using the Internet. Does the ISP have a responsibility to stop me by cutting off my service? By doing that, there's no way for me to work, and thus my livelihood is jeopardized. Furthermore, is the ISP really allowed to judge that what I am doing is something illegal and convict and punsih me, thereby denying me the right to make a living?
But what if I lived in a remote area and the only way for me to get into town is to use a taxi service. On my way into work, I roll down the window and start shooting at people. Does the taxi driver have a responsibility to stop and tell me to walk out? By doing that, there's no way for me to get to work, and thus my livelihood is jeopardized. Furthermore, is the driver really allowed to judge that what I am doing is something illegal and convict and punish me, thereby denying me a right to make a living?
I'm not a lawyer, but could the ISP or the taxi driver be liable for reckless or criminal indifference if they didn't stop me?
Not a valid comparison
by Nicholas Buenk - 11/10/09 4:50 PM In reply to: Counter argument to holding ISP's liable for content by ftngraveIt's like trying to hold an electricity company responsible for someones counterfeiting machine. Or a phone company responible for the mob communicating a hit order.
A taxi driver doesn't have to do active investigation to notice a user doing something wrong.
It's not a perfect example...
by DangMI - 11/12/09 8:44 AM In reply to: Counter argument to holding ISP's liable for content by ftngravebut when someone gets convicted of drunk driving, they lose their license. May greatly affect their ability to work, as well as all the members of their family, but it is all a consequence of their drinking. While also probably related to their driving dangerously--which is part of why this is not s superb example--but this is not for sure--they could have been pulled over for broken tail light and then discovered to be intoxicated with the same end result. I live pretty rural and had 50 miles to work till recently--never could have afforded a taxi and not really any bus service. But would have been my own fault for drinkning and driving, wouldn't it?
No this is quite a different issue
by Nicholas Buenk - 11/12/09 3:54 PM In reply to: It's not a perfect example... by DangMIIt's essentially a free speech issue. Someone being cut off from the Internet greatly reduces their communication ability. It's a very bad precedent to set, it's aliken to the government trying to acquire powers to ban someone from writing on paper due to a crime that was committed. It makes no sense it should just be a fine, like a speeding ticket.
There is a valid point here
by minimalist - 11/12/09 8:49 PM In reply to: No this is quite a different issue by Nicholas BuenkIn the US you don;t have the "right" to drive a car. it is considered a privilege, in spite of the needs of your business or how far you live from public transportation (if any). Can't say I believe its a good or fair system given many smaller community's lack of any public transportation, but restricting access to a car for drunk driving convictions have been upheld time and time again.
Now the question is what constitutes a privilege and what constitutes an essential utility. The one obvious difference I can think of that is that one needs a license to drive a car. This is not true with access to the net. Question is, can we get the courts to see a data connection as a life sustaining utility )such as water, gas or electricity) to which all citizens have a fundamental right.
Let's try for a comunication example
by DangMI - 11/13/09 5:22 AM In reply to: No this is quite a different issue by Nicholas BuenkIf you make harrassing/threatening phone calls to your ex on your home phone, you can be prosecuted. It's happened before and you've offended again. Would it be appropriate to now also remove phone service from your home? (For now, let's ignore that you'd just get out your cell phone AND that the tech exists to restrict the phone to 911 calls AND let's even have you live alone so others aren't affected/at risk.)
Actually phone service would not be cut off
by minimalist - 11/13/09 6:05 AM In reply to: Let's try for a comunication example by DangMIbecause it is considered a basic utility which can be critical in life or death emergencies. You can still be prosecuted and punished for harassing others but I do not believe the law can forbid you from having phone service. Nor could they cut off your electricity, gas, or water services for crimes committed using these resources.
All of those things can be cut off
by DangMI - 11/13/09 6:40 AM In reply to: Actually phone service would not be cut off by minimalistif you don't pay the bills. As for life and death, they won't shutoff your gas in the winter but they will in the spring and they don't come and turn it back on when winter comes around again. Why can't they turn such things off for a crime as well? (Tho I'm having trouble coming up with a crime involving your home's water!)
Could even make a case that not having a car could sometimes be life and death.
BTW--I'm actually not advocating any of this! And haven't heard of it happening--just interesting exploring all the corners.
Not paying bills is a different situation
by minimalist - 11/13/09 7:23 AM In reply to: All of those things can be cut off by DangMIand even there are checks in place to make sure these utilities are not cut off too hastily. You have to really screw up and not pay for several months before most utilities can be cut off (longer in some states with extra regulation). If you think any of these utilities can be cut off by court order because one has been convicted of a crime I'd like to see an example because I know of not one case where this has happened.
And this exactly is the cruz of the argument about cutting off internet connectivity. Is it a utility or not?
Yup--I agree that is the issue
by DangMI - 11/13/09 8:11 AM In reply to: Not paying bills is a different situation by minimalist"And this exactly is the cruz of the argument about cutting off internet connectivity. Is it a utility or not?"
That's why I tried to come up with a utility example. I think you placed this in the right context--just going on and looking at utility issues. Thing is, since there ARE situations where utilities CAN be shut off, I think that proves they are not a "right" or life and death as some seem to be saying. We no longer allow people to be put in prison for their debts--I would hope we, therefore, don't allow them to be deprived of "a life sustaining utility" for the same reason!
And, I did say I have never heard of anyone having a utility cut off for a crime. So I don't have any examples. I'm totally NOT advocating that this be done. Just trying to anticipate the arguments.
I'm not sure having a right to something
by minimalist - 11/13/09 8:24 AM In reply to: Yup--I agree that is the issue by DangMImeans it must be free. But the fact that a utility can be turned off for non-payment does not mean that a court has a right to forbid you access to that utility.
Connectivity mistakenly seen as a "luxury" or a "privilege"
by minimalist - 11/12/09 3:52 PM In reply to: Counter argument to holding ISP's liable for content by ftngraveThe problem is of course that the generation in power right now, the ones making and enforcing the laws, still mistakenly see connectivity as a luxury, not a necessity. They have no idea that a reliable data connection has become as much a basic utility as phone service, electricity, gas and water.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
