Slashdot Mirror
Has Verizon Forfeited Common Carrier Status?
An anonymous reader writes, "Freedom of speech, the future of the Net, you name it. In October, a U.S. vigilante group asked Verizon to cut off Net access to Epifora, a Canadian ISP that hosts a number of (entirely legal) web sites offering support to minor-attracted adults. Shortly thereafter, Verizon gave 30 days notice to Epifora, ending a 5 year relationship. Telecos have traditionally refrained from censoring legal content, arguing that as 'common carriers' it is outside of their scope to make such decisions. Furthermore, they have refrained because if they did so in some cases, they might be legally liable for other cases where they did not exercise censorship. The questions are: has Verizon forfeited their claim to common-carrier status by selectively censoring legal speech that they do not like? And can the net effectively route around censorship if the trunk carriers are allowed to pick and choose whom they allow to connect?"
I suppose that depends on the definition of "support".
If by "support" they mean support groups like AA where "minor-attracted adults" seek help in not acting on impulses and addictions, then not really; it bears distinguishing between pedophiles and people who recognize that their attractions aren't healthy, even if they feel natural.
If "support" is more like a NAMBLA textbook for seduction, then a euphemism it is.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
fud notfud yes no maybe
Maybe itsatrap as well.
Why do we have tags if the same braindead ones are displayed for most of them?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
First of all, if you read the article, 2 sites were named as being found objectionable by Verizon:
"The company's clients host a number of websites and chatboards-- such as Boychat.org and Freespirits.org-- with a pederastic slant."
The article also seems to indicate that they would be legal in the US:
"With its transgressive content, Epifora had faced scrutiny before. After a July, 2001 report in Canada's National Post, MCI-Canada approached the Ontario Provincial Police for an opinion, and inspector Bob Matthews, of the OPP's "Project P" declared the material on Epifora's servers in compliance with the Criminal Code. That says a lot, as Canadian law sets a higher bar than the US and most other countries, making no distinction between, say, photographs of minors having sex, textual descriptions thereof, or even speech "advocating" such acts."
Furthermore, I believe you are missing the point:
Weather or not you agree with what is being said, free speech is protected by law in Canada and in the US. The issue here is weather or not Telcos should be able to censor content by refusing to provide access to their backbone. Verizon is refusing a Canadian ISP access to the backbone because they host a few websites that Verizon doesn't like.
The websites are legal in Canada for sure. Should Verizon be allowed to do this? I don't think so. This is a slippery slope that nobody wants to end up at the bottom of.
"Fire" is just a word. It's not my fault people are so jumpy. Inciting a riot takes some underlying issue 99% of the time, so trying to ban "inciting a riot" is kind of like blaming red buttons for nuclear attacks.
Great Intellect...
"What the hell is a "minor attracted adult", if not a pedophile?"
Attraction to those under the age of the majority. That includes more than prepubescent children.
"it bothers me to see the mainstreaming of pedophilia with terms like this."
Has it occurred to you that it may be a tactic to bash those who can't be shown, or even suspected, of pedophilia at all?
"They talked about 'coming out', and about accepting themselves, and reclaiming terms like 'boy lover'. They were mentally and emotionally setting the stage for the same sort of battle for public acceptance that the gay community has fought and mostly won over the last few decades."
What is the problem with this? So far you've described no criminal behavior at all. Are you advocating keeping people with this condition be as emotionally deprived as possible? How is that a help to society?
"I don't want them to 'come out', I don't want them to have supportive underground communities, and it was saddening to see the entirely appropriate discourse of public acceptance of homosexuality and queer identity perverted like this."
It isn't perverted. Being closeted for them is no different. Plenty have said the same things about gays.
"This is exactly the slippery slope that the right uses to justify non-acceptance of gays, and we need to bring a big heavy boot down on crap like 'minor attracted adult' to demonstrate that we can make moral choices about who we will accept and who we won't."
My moral choice is to accept what everyone's condition is. There is a big difference between accepting a person's condition and accepting their actions. It is child molestation that is the issue and nothing you've described has anything to do with that. You just seemed consumed by hatred and fear of those you don't know.
"The world's a better place because homosexuality has been mainstreamed. It'll be a better place still when pedophilia is absolutely and explicitly denied the same path and the same acceptance. It starts by calling bullshit on terms like 'minor attracted adult'."
I don't agree with any of that. First, homosexuality hasn't been mainstreamed outside progressive areas. Second, pedophilia is a condition that people develop outside their choice, and it's child molestation that has to be prevented. Finally, you have no idea why the term "minor attracted adult" was chosen and you have no basis for declaring that it means "pedophile" (or more accurately "child molester in your usage).