> In the spirit of Jean-Luc Picard, while the interlocutor is abhorrent, removing him from the internet, a fundamental service feels just as wrong as doing nothing.
I know that Finland will disagree with me here, but the internet is not a "fundamental service". It is set of insanely complex systems built and maintained at large cost by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
If I own a car dealership, or a bakery, I have the right to refuse service to anyone who walks in and insults me. Similarly, I think ISPs have the right, as businesses, to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
Now you could argue something like "but it's a public good! The government pays for a part of it!". This is true, but you can say the same thing about the road system - the entity responsible for creating the road system (in this case, the government) has the power to decided under what conditions it can be used. For example, if you drive drunk, you can be excluded from the road system, 'fundamental rights' be damned.
Despite the lofty rhetoric of post-Enlightenment constitutions, it is wise to remember that the so-called 'social-contract' [0] is, like any contract, a two way engagement. You get police protection and education and access to services, ONLY on the condition that you play by the rules.
[0] and that's assuming we avoid the cynical anarchist view that really, a government is just a glorified protection racket imposing its will upon you by coercion.
I know that Finland will disagree with me here, but the internet is not a "fundamental service". It is set of insanely complex systems built and maintained at large cost by hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
If I own a car dealership, or a bakery, I have the right to refuse service to anyone who walks in and insults me. Similarly, I think ISPs have the right, as businesses, to refuse service to anyone, for any reason.
Now you could argue something like "but it's a public good! The government pays for a part of it!". This is true, but you can say the same thing about the road system - the entity responsible for creating the road system (in this case, the government) has the power to decided under what conditions it can be used. For example, if you drive drunk, you can be excluded from the road system, 'fundamental rights' be damned.
Despite the lofty rhetoric of post-Enlightenment constitutions, it is wise to remember that the so-called 'social-contract' [0] is, like any contract, a two way engagement. You get police protection and education and access to services, ONLY on the condition that you play by the rules.
[0] and that's assuming we avoid the cynical anarchist view that really, a government is just a glorified protection racket imposing its will upon you by coercion.