Re: [ga] RE: Re: A point of agreement (Re: [ga-roots] response to respo nse to response)
Tuesday, May 29, 2001, 8:23:53 PM, erica roberts wrote:
> At the risk of stating the obvious ....
> We seem to be in danger here of forgetting that the Internet is global but
> the constitution of the USA is not. While the US government is pretty
> powerful, it is not a global or world government. The rest of the world is
> not bound by the constitution of the USA or the laws of the USA. An
> international treaty would be required to make alternate roots illegal in
> the rest of the world.
Right, but let's face it.
A ban in the US would effectively kill most of them, not to mention
any chance of them gaining significant ground.
(Again, I'm not advocating this type of ban. I think it would be one
of those very unnecessary laws, but we do tend to see a lot of them
passed. Including a law to provide $100,000 in funds to fund a
psychologist over a one year period to research why prisoners do not
like prison. So the possibility of such a law is not that far
fetched, in light of the US Congress' tendency to pass laws for the
sake of passing laws. The area should be left alone, the alt.roots
will continue to remain as insignificant as they are today, they lack
the ability to really achieve anything as a collective unit.)
William X Walsh
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html