Filtered Internet Service Provider

[Jamie McCarthy]

> And the key word is "choice": no one was talking about forcing
> consumers to have filtered access.  If the consumer wasn't satisfied
> with the filtering, they could easily switch back to unfiltered.
> 
> I personally am in favor of things that give parents choices, rather
> than forcing all of them accept free speech absolutism as the only
> choice.

What we're talking about is forcing internet service providers
to purchase censorware and install it on one or more of their
machines for their customers to use.  Key word:  "forcing."

Currently, some ISPs choose to allocate their resources in this
way and some do not.  Parents have the choice of whether they
want to sign up with an ISP that does this, or not.  (AOL and
Prodigy are examples of nationwide ISPs that have signed up to
provide Cyber Patrol's filtering to their customers.)

This rumored plan would end that;  it would be an unfunded
mandate that would (through an intermediary) take dollars out of
the parents' pockets and give them to censorware companies.
Parents wouldn't have a choice about their involuntary financial
support for censorware.  I'd like to let them keep that choice.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy                 jamie at mccarthy.org
 homepage: http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
   fan of: http://www.nizkor.org/