[ NNSquad ] Re: Mall's Wi-Fi blocks "adult" content

[Dave Kristol <dmk-nnsquad@kristol.org>]

> [...]
> [ Here's a thought experiment. If a mall offered free telephone
> service for their patrons around the mall, through handsets
> placed at various locations, would similar restrictions be
> acceptable? If a customer tried to call a local abortion clinic
> or an "adult toys" store from one of those phones, would it be
> reasonable for the system to cut in and say, "I'm sorry, we will
> not complete your call as dialed, since we consider the business
> you are calling to not meet our ethical standards -- CLUNK." ?
> Is this fundamentally different from the Wi-Fi situation? Even
> more to the point, what if you were trying to call a store in the mall
> itself when this happened?

Continuing the thought experiment, must the free phone service provider 
allow 900 calls to go through?  Does the provider have no rights to 
limit the service provided?  Is it all or nothing?

Dave Kristol

   [ 900 calls have an extra charge associated with them.  Blocking
     them would be entirely reasonable.  The topic under discussion
     is the blocking of destinations based largely on the "moral"
     determinations of the party providing the service.  Again, would
     such phone call blocking of the sort I described above be
     considered acceptable in any public contexts?  My bet is that most
     people would be outraged.  So why is this any different than
     blocking particular Wi-Fi sites that are engaged in legal
     operations?  I'd like a "pro-blocking" reader to address this
     comparision directly, if you can.

          -- Lauren Weinstein
             NNSquad Moderator ]