Re: More on digital postage

[snow <snow@smoke.suba.com>]

Mr. Bell wrote:
> At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote:
> >Tim may says:
> >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut
> >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these
> >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to
> >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it
> >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned.
> >I have to disagree here.  The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised
> >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. 
> However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full 
> well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the 
> phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information 
> provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing 
> junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.

	That is a ridiculous argument. The door to my home is connected
to the street,m and I know full well that that makes it easy for anyone 
to come wandering in to my home. Is it legal, just because I have my 
home hooked to the street, for someone to come in and help themselves to 
a beer out of my fridge?

	Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right,
and it doesn't make it legal.