Free speech vs. private property in cyberspace

Isn't this the same issue as defined in your Spam article back in April? The question then was how to control the flow of spam without impacting free speech. This article expands the questions -- can there be free speech across a private network? You can control free speech (protests, for example) on private property, so why is a private network any different? Wouldn't the owner of that property have sole discretion of what kinds of messages could be shared across that network? My company's Internet Usage Policy states they have the right to determine proper Internet usage. Is this now not the case?

The question is a bit more convoluted. The issue is whether the state should assist or not (in the form of an injunction) in protecting the use of a server, as if it were physical property, or whether it is simply a mater of self-help, as with personal property (chattel). The 9th Circuit says the latter and Epstein says the former. I tend to agree with him and when it comes to spam feel that one of the best ways to fight it is to allow folks running servers to be able to obtain injunctions against spammers abusing their servers. This would be a much more precise and I think more effective way to cut down on spam rather than creating broad sweeping legislation that presumes guilt on behalf of anyone sending out email for commercial purposes. But there is also the principle: my property is my property and states exist in part to help me protect my property.