Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks

[Damaged Justice <frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu>]

> >It seems as though the judge was snookered by the spammers' claim of U.S. 
> >Mail-like service, free speech, blah. The right to free speech does 
> >extend to corporations; in that way, it includes the right *not* to speak.
> 
> Declan raises a good point. But I'm guessing it's a bit more complex than
> that.  CyberPromo and AOL lawyers tell me the court slapped down AOL simply
> to "keep the status quo." Both sides used those very words, in fact. 
> 
> What's more, CyberPromo talks a good game on the First Amendment, but used
> computer fraud and unfair competition statutes - not the Bill of Rights - in
> its original filing against AOL. So what's going on?

It may be because until the 14th amendment incorporated the BoR against
the states, only individuals enjoyed its protections -- the Slaughterhouse
cases extended the BoR to corporations. Or it may just be that CyberPromo
knew they probably didn't have a leg to stand on when it came to the BoR,
and decided to try a safer tack.

> It seems Weiner is  _very_ aware that this case deals with things never
> before argued in court. No one has really sorted out just how much e-mail -
> if any - an ISP is obligated to carry against its wishes. What Weiner
> decides this fall may not set the kind of precendent that the case of the
> Pentagon Papers did, but will be important for a while at least. 

Agreed. Regardless of the outcome, this is a case to watch.

--
http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information
      Hey, Bill Clinton: You suck, and those boys died! I hope you die!
 I feel a groove comin' on             $              Freedom...yeah, right.