Article247_4430.txt

   
   
      
         
            Connection Trouble
            

            A "plaintive" "Cassandra"? No, Richard, more a disappointed Eeyore. My last
response wasn't lamenting the end of cyberspace. It was lamenting the failure
to connect. What baffles me is your refusal to engage an argument that I have
made--any argument, either in this exchange, or from the book. But you won't.
You attack what I "seem" to be saying or what I must "assume." Why not attack
what I say?

            For example:

            You say my "first problem ... is that [I] cannot distinguish between a
change and a problem" and then you go on to argue that real-space law will be
"carried over to the Net as needed." But where have I ever said anything
different? My argument is against those who say law won't "be needed" and
shouldn't be used.

            You ask why "should we worry if the ACLU and the Christian right have their
gates to filter information" so long as they don't "impose their will on
individuals who do not join their cause." But it was precisely my point that
the PICS architecture enables the imposition on those who do "not join their
cause." So are you agreeing with me? Or disagreeing with me? Or just not
hearing me?

            You say "Larry seems to think that public and private controls are the
same." Where have I ever said anything like that? Obviously they are both
"controls." Obviously they are differentially dangerous, depending upon the
context. What words have I uttered to conflict with these obvious
banalities?

            You rightfully report my "lament" at the displacement of an embedded First
Amendment, and then quote my argument about the increasing power of government
to zone cyberspace. But then you chide me that the "painfully obvious answer"
to my lament is that these changes won't come "if that kind of restriction
violates the First Amendment."

            But Richard, look at what I wrote. The section you quote was not talking
about the First Amendment--it was talking about the consequences of increasing
identification. The point was that this affected the commons, not only, as you
said, the gated communities. My argument about the First Amendment comes three
paragraphs later, and about filters, not IDs. Whatever protection this (local
ordinance) of a First Amendment has against filters, it has "painfully" little
protection against IDs.

            And then you close by saying that your view "is that the standard set of
legal techniques ... carry over well to this new environment" and that "nothing
about the Internet, no special brand of cyberspace liberty, changes these
fundamental relationships and the problems they pose." And I'm again just at a
loss--what does this have to do with anything I said? Much of my book is about
how to translate legal values from real space to cyberspace. So what do you
believe you are arguing against?

            In every case, for some reason, I can't get you to focus on arguments that I
actually make, either here or in the book. I say commerce is changing the
character of the Net; you say you "don't get it." I say it is changing the Net
by changing the architecture; you say it won't affect the commons, only the
"gated communities" and "side-by-side" networks. I show three ways in which it
is changing the commons, not the private networks; you respond with a string of
banalities that have nothing to do with the commons, or my point. You run, but
you will not hide. Instead, you say more and more that connects less and
less.

            I have tried to "sell" a message, it is true. I am grateful to those who
have read it. I'm not sure it is right, in ways I hope it is wrong, and in the
end, Richard, you might be right: It might "just not add up." But you'd be a
bit more convincing in selling that message if you actually wrote about what I
wrote.

            It might just make the argument a bit less "diffuse" and "hypothetical."

            Be well.