Corporations & Legalisms and the Web

I find all this legalist mumbo jumbo to be ludicrous.

So and so has the right to censor, because he “owns” a web site.


There is no part of the web that is not “owned” by someone.


Here’s an example:

My route here:

Items 3-10 of the route my connection takes to reach

(I eliminated my country/location at the start and Docudharma’s location at the end, although I can clearly see everything about them, and admins at docudharma can clearly see me, unless I try to hide myself)




4 (  84.910 ms  159.320 ms  86.412 ms

5 (  98.405 ms  90.392 ms  90.703 ms

6 (  88.706 ms  89.860 ms (  90.654 ms

7 (  117.342 ms  107.607 ms  110.644 ms

8 (  114.238 ms  107.093 ms  108.657 ms






So, you can’t even reach this site, w/o bumping through:

1. An ISP

2. 7-10 or more in my case relay points (hops).

Each is likely to be a separate corporate entity.  None are “Not For Profit” None.

Each might have reasons for you to not say what you just said.

3. the webhost of this blog

4. Finally, the blog owner (Ie the owner of the domain name –which is worth around $6.99)

If you’re in some nations (like China) this blog is probably completely blocked, by the way.  

That’s legal too.

Mexico Temex blocked all VOIP for a long time, and finally gave up.

Not illegal either.

So, to claim that Kos has the right to censor, you have to also claim that your ISP, Microsoft (which runs many relays) ,  well some 7-10 corporate entites in fact, all have the legal right to censor your content.

Which they do, in fact.

But, it’s entirely besides the point.

Corporate censorship is not illegal.

They own the servers, they own the wire.

Censorship by a country is not illegal either: they make the rules !

In summation: for those that keep arguing that censorship is OK when a corporation is involved: well there’s no difference between one corporation and another, is there?

If you want to post something; post it.  

If some corporation complains about it: screw them !

Both you and they are within all legal rights.

But morally?

Are we to claim that all of those hops above, the ISP, the host, the owner of a $6.99 domain name, and the one’s I redacted, PLUS the various nations at the endpoints, or countries in-between the two, have the right to censorship?



Skip to comment form

  1. some things one wouldn’t try to ban from one’s web site.

    But it should be a very high bar.

    And the ‘he has the legal right to do such and such’ has no weight or relevancy whatsoever.

    The question is: is it the right thing to do?

    Would I like better it if ATT did it?

    • Miep on September 26, 2009 at 5:43 am

    that net neutrality should extend to website content?

    Because that would be utter chaos.

  2. comment by FreeSociety that got lost in the marathon essay but I saw it just a little while ago. here is the link that I thought deserved more views.

Comments have been disabled.