Re: Georgia Legislation - Remailer Effect???

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 04:28 PM 4/20/96 -0500, Lou Zirko wrote:

>T have included copy of text from c/net about a bill passed in the 
>Georgia legislature.  It would definately impact remailer service.  
>Location of the remailers might fall in with the Arkansas (or was it 
>Tennessee) BBS/Porno case.  The URL is at:
>http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,1144,00.html
>Article follows
>- ----------------------------
>Georgia OKs "Net Police" law
>                By Rose Aguilar
>                April 19, 1996, 5 p.m. PST 
> A bill signed into law this week by Georgia Governor 
>Zell Miller has sparked yet another firestorm
> ver what role the government should take in curbing 
>the Internet and whether legislators are
> sufficiently techno-savvy to make considered judgments. 
>
> House Bill 1630 was introduced on February 8 by Georgia 
>House of Representatives member Don
> Parsons (R-Marietta). The bill makes it illegal to 
>falsely identify yourself or place a registered
>trademark or logo on your home page. The bill also 
>makes it illegal for email users to have addresses
> that don't include their own names.

[much scary but useful  information deleted]

Well, I love to be an "I told you so."  Back when nearly everybody was 
fawning over the Leahy bill, I (and a few other people, to their credit) was 
telling you about its likely effect on the usage of encrypted remailers. 
 Not surprisingly, my warnings were eventually recognized to be accurate, at 
least potentially so.  Fortunately (I hope?) we were also told that "they" 
(government thugs, etc) would definitely oppose that bill, a claim which if 
true, would guarantee its quick death _IF_ the opposition of 
Internet-friendly people was also present. 

Now we see that if the thugs can't get what they want by Federal 
legislation, they're gonna try to sneak it through by state law.  Hey, it's 
really doubtful that even NATIONAL law can have a prayer of controlling the 
Internet; I really doubt that Georgia is going to succeed at this attempt.  
Most likely it isn't even constitutional, and it certainly isn't compatible 
with the First amendment or the Federal regulation of most communications 
media.

Even so, this shows just how desperate the statists have become to try to 
get a foothold into the regulation of the Internet.  Ignore this at your own 
peril.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com