On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:08:51 -0400, Greg Mirsky wrote:
Sorry, but I want to point out that Vadim (and I'll second his opinion) was talking about a particular site www.Kavkaz.org which is set by Chechen terrorists (sorry again, I wouldn't call them "rebels" since it an insult to those who rebel for cause).
Last time I've checked Chechnya was not part of USA and thus none of them is a US citizen unless there are mercenaries. If that's the case then why you're talking about Freedom of Speech and First Amendment?
Because the mechanism that would shut the company down would be for the U.S. government to go after that company for the content of their speech. If you imagine some other mechanism, then perhaps other arguments would apply.
How it's applicable to foreign terrorist organization that uses American company to spread its ideas?
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.
Or perhaps you're more tolerable to Chechen terrorists using American info-space then if it would be bin Laden using it? Would your company host a site that posts Laden's fatwahs (sp?)? Would you provide them with 24*7 customer support? If not, please try to explain to me, where's difference?
No, I wouldn't. The difference is, my company is mine and it's my right to choose what speech I wish to carry over my network. Another network carrying someone else's speech is not mine, and the principle of freedom of speech demands that I not use my government as a club to suppress the speech of others. I realize this might be considered a complex distinction by people not from this country. But it's absolutely fundamental to the philosophical principles on which America was founded. Foreigners sometimes think it's nutty. DS