[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)
"William H. Geiger III" <[email protected]> writes:
> In <[email protected]>, on 06/08/97
> at 07:36 AM, Declan McCullagh <[email protected]> said:
>
> >I don't think commercial speech should be treated as second-class speech.
> >But my position is hardly surprising.
>
> Well I think that there are some that would confuse the issue between 1st
> Amendment free speech and the issues surrounding fraud. Especially those
> in government who write the laws that regulate commercial speech.
Sure - it's their means of livelyhood :-)
Now, "fraud" suggests that the onus is on the gumbint to prove that the
claim is false.
However if I were to market "borshch" by mail order as a cure for cancer,
I'd be asked to "prove" in some ridiculous unscientific ways that it does
indeed cure cancer - spending $100M, which only the few large drug companies
can affort - suits them and the FDA just fine.
Troll: and how about them proposed restrictions on tobacco advertising...
---
<a href="mailto:[email protected]">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps