Re: Censorship in America, Part II

["John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP" <bambenek.infosec () gmail com>]

I don't think you agree with it, it's universally seen as stupid and simply
an outgrowth of the nanny-state government must citizens insist on because
it's really "the governments job to deal with everything we don't like". And
it applies to companies just as much. When people use lawnmowers as hedge
trimmers and unsurprisingly screw up themselves, who do we blame?  The
company.  We require in tort law that all products be developed to be
idiot-proof, and lo and behold, better idiots come along.  I still can't buy
cold medicine for my kid, for instance, because companies don't sell cold
medicine for infants anymore. So really, I don't see it all that surprising
that NetSol is simply censoring (or quieting if you want) "bad" content. If
they were hosting a KKK website, you know half the web would be wanting the
same thing. You've got people running to government to stop
"cyber-bullying", you've got everybody in their mother clamoring for an end
to "hate speech" and that we need to be "inclusive", and now we reap what we
sow.  Someone else decides what's safe for us to see now.

And for the record, clickwrap contracts are bullshit. I don't care what the
law says. When you can impose a 100+ page contract that no one reads just
for someone to sign up for a *free email account* and you write such
documents to be indecipherable to anyone without a JD, I think such
contracts should be null and void.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 11:40:51AM -0500, John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP
> wrote:
> > Reviewing the Oxford Dictionary of English, censorship does not require
> that
> > the censor is governmental.
>
> <sigh> Nor, I'll bet, does it delve into the nuances of contract law and
> how you can agree to things in contracts by which you voluntarily give
> up rights that you might otherwise have.  For example, you might, as a
> condition of employment, sign a non-disclosure agreement which forbids
> you to talk about X for Y years or to talk about X to Z or whatever.
> This represents a voluntarily surrender on your part of some of your
> (in the US) First Amendment rights, but it's not censorship.
>
> And it is obviously in the context of Constitutionally-protected rights
> that this discussion has any meaning: we're not talking about a TV
> network blurring out a boobie here.  Nor is it really of any consequence
> what a corporation like NetSol does (unless that corporation is acting
> as a proxy for a government, e.g., as a contractor).
>
> You will find that [most] modern corporations go to enormous lengths
> to stipulate in their employment agreements, terms-of-service, company
> manuals, training programs, contracts, and other materials that they have
> sole, unlimited, irrevocable control over every form of communication that
> takes place under their auspices.  This renders them immune to claims of
> "censorship" because by asserting total control of *everything* -- and
> mandating agreement with that control (by employees, customers, etc.) --
> they cause everyone involved to voluntarily surrender a portion of
> their rights.  To put it another way: within their scope, you *have no
> free speech rights*, therefore such rights can't be infringed, therefore
> you can't be censored.
>
> Which means, for example, that NetSol must assuredly did not "censor"
> this web site: it just (selectively) decided to enforce contract terms.
>
> (Don't, if you're starting to read the thread here, think for a moment
> I agree with or approve of this.)
>
> ---Rsk
> _______________________________________________
> Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
> https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
> Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.