On Thursday, April 24, 2014 18:41:12 Douglas Otis wrote: > On Apr 24, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Friday, April 25, 2014 02:26:22 Martin Rex wrote: > > ... > > > >> The DMARC policy scheme is actually censoring of a telecommunication > >> between a messge sender and a message receiver through a > >> telecommunications > >> provider by some _outside_ third party. So in the US a p=reject DMARC > >> policy might potentially be freedom of speech (1st Amendment) violation. > > > > No idea about the rest of it, but this is nonsense. The 1st Amendment to > > the constitution is a restriction on government action, not on private > > action. See http://xkcd.com/1357/ . > > Dear Scott, > > Strongly disagree. The US government failed to protect citizen's rights by > not declaring ISPs common carriers. People's ability to meet and freely > associate is now being steadily eroded by policies hostile to decades of > neighborhood and small communities' normal meeting practices. This has > nothing to do with someone being abusive and shunned. This is about ISPs > taking greater control over content carried on the Internet. The usurping > of control over Internet use is very likely to put democracy in greater > peril as content control is taken over by an oligarchy. I didn't say it was a good idea. I said it wasn't unconstitutional. No all constitutional ideas are good ones. It's a case of law, not fundamental rights. Scott K