[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
> >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.