The difference is that Starbucks is a private company. If the city is going to take my money and force me to fund a service I don’t think they should be in the first place, the least they could do is grant me my rights that they’re supposed to protect as a government body.

I have an open wireless router that I use to share my Internet connection with my neighbors, but I use some bandwidth-limiting controls to keep freeloaders from consuming all of my bandwidth or slowing down my connection. If I catch them doing things I don’t think they should be doing, I block them. It sounds like this post is implying that the people providing the bandwidth shouldn’t have a say in what freeloaders do with that bandwidth, or aren’t allowed to protect themselves legally from those that choose to do naughty things with that bandwidth.

As it is, what’s proposed above is a wonderful recipe for Nanny State-ism; I’d have thought that a liability disclaimer would be more “supplied as-is and used at own risk … takes no responsibility for use … ” and so on.

PS. Loved the book.
PPS. Shouldn’t it say: “focused ON free speech issues”