[sukuriant]

I honestly didn't perceive it as "free as in freedom" in the above context.

That said, roads aren't that, either. Try driving on one without a license, insurance, using them in ways that are disapproved of / disallowed (speeding heavily, drinking and driving, etc) to see. Alternatively, use the road to play a game of football. I don't really think they're "free as in freedom", either.

[jkelsey]

Stop it. You're being purposely obtuse if you're trying to equate freedom as the freedom to do crazy and nonsensical things versus freedom as a sense of liberty for people to access information, resources or services (regardless of if it's in the context of the Internet or public roads).

Your argument is in the same vein as people who try to win the debate over if we have freedom of speech or not by saying we don't because we can't yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater. Context is everything; you can't just ignore it conveniently because you're trying to save an argument that you made under a misinterpretation. Why do we have the 1st Amendment? Because the founders wanted to preserve the ability for people to make politically averse opinions in opposition to those in power, not because the founders wanted people to be to somehow able defy the laws of the natural world.

People are fighting for a free and open Internet, because it has value in being able to quick access to important and useful information without restriction, not because of some super-literal definition of "freedom" or because we want it for 0 dollars and 0 cents.

[sb057]

>just as our roads are free and open to everyone, so should the digital roads be.

Nobody is arguing that internet access should be gratis. How could you possibly perceive it as not meaning "free as in freedom?"

[deciplex]

Let me know when you're effectively prohibited from driving at all, because I pulled on to the road before you did.