[dan1123]

I think the real question is that should the internet be considered public activity?

There are several aspects to the issue. A web page may be considered public, or it may be in a password protected area available only to subscribers. Email may be considered private as well as instant messaging and VOIP. However, what if your computer has it’s files world readable over the internet? What if something happens accidentally and it causes you to violate community standards without willful intent?

I think a local law requiring ISPs to offer filtered public internet activity (websites, file sharing) as their cheapest option would be a good solution that doesn’t violate anyone’s rights. If you want unfiltered internet, just pay slightly more (it might only be a penny). If you want filtered internet, you don’t have to pay a price premium to get it. and community standards would only be enforced on the filtered tier.

[fr_freak]

I think the real question is that should the internet be considered public activity?

My answer to that would be no - the internet should not be allowed to be under the jurisdiction of state, local, or federal government. Given the design of the internet (a communication network with no central hub, able to withstand an attack on any part without losing functionality to the whole), it would be impossible to limit what people access on the internet without implementing China-style censorship. Technically, there would have to be some physical bottleneck of network bandwidth to allow for universal filtering, or there would have to be sniffers everywhere to bust people who go to unauthorized sites. In either case, the value of the internet would be destroyed, and government would be more oppressive.