6 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
R.>The down side was that licensing was mentioned as the first recourse R.>from the state. When we complained of the financial hit, the talk R.>turned to registration. But the sense was clearly toward proactive R.>state control. Are these people mentally retarded or what. A BBS is a publication. The 1st Amendment was specifically written to outlaw the British licensing of publications. No risk. DCF --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In list.cypherpunks, frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell) writes:
> R.>The down side was that licensing was mentioned as the first recourse
> R.>from the state. When we complained of the financial hit, the talk
> R.>turned to registration. But the sense was clearly toward proactive
> R.>state control.
>
> Are these people mentally retarded or what.
I'm not qualified to answer that. :)
> A BBS is a publication. The
> 1st Amendment was specifically written to outlaw the British licensing of
> publications. No risk.
Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So.
Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as
publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose).
- --
Roy M. Silvernail [] roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org
It's just this little chromium switch.......
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBLhQHBBvikii9febJAQF88wQAkHE6Kj9ALRSXZBy5jP2+8X4afaoC4PD+
12jUKDlLfPw1PE7NicHwwO/gBk9Zhq0s2+rTpvaG5Ih61VxC/xQ+IAsrK1B9Dpfr
WReuAi4NsDih5wO4EFKMR7aYlreTPqGXOtu1M4hq46C26OVgi5MPnjp6T8jOHGch
X2tTml0XqEI=
=9pxs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----Roy M. Silvernail says: > > A BBS is a publication. The > > 1st Amendment was specifically written to outlaw the British licensing of > > publications. No risk. > > Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So. > Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as > publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose). Untrue as of Tuesday, when the Supremes came out with a decision recognising (to a limited extent) the 1st amendment rights of cable companies. However, you are right that no direct precedent exists. Perry
Roy M. Silvernail wrote: (quoting Duncan Frissell) > > A BBS is a publication. The > > 1st Amendment was specifically written to outlaw the British licensing of > > publications. No risk. > > Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So. > Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as > publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose). Not so. Writers who use computers, journalists who write directly to electronic distribution, etc., are just as protected against censorship or prior restraint as paper-oriented journalists are. Any law which required, for example, writers like us to submit their writings to some government censorship agency would of course be struck down immediately. (Note: "Wartime" situations may be different, which is why I fear the term "War" in "War on Drugs," "War on Money Launderers," and "War on Barny Bashers.") --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
On Fri, 1 Jul 1994, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: > Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So. > Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as > publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose). > - -- > Roy M. Silvernail [] roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org I know the courts have never ruled in a case in point but is there any doubt that BBS are publications. They are in text for the most part. They resemble the "Broadsides" that were a big part of public discourse in 1789 in the Confederacy (The US under the Articles of Confederation). What are they, chopped liver? DCF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Quoth frissell@panix.com (Duncan Frissell), in list.cypherpunks:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 1994, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
>
>> Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So.
>> Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as
>> publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose).
>> - --
>> Roy M. Silvernail [] roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org
>
> I know the courts have never ruled in a case in point but is there any
> doubt that BBS are publications.
- From the court's point of view, there was. Another message on the list
mentions a favorable decision Tuesday that will help to set some good
precedent. Up until then, BBS' were't recognized _legally_ as publishers.
> What are they, chopped liver?
In case you missed it, I never said I agreed with this point... only
tried to put some quasi-legal light on it. I think legal recognition is
way overdue.
- --
Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | PGP 2.3 public
roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org | main(){ | key available
| int x=486; | upon request
| printf("Just my '%d.\n",x);} | (send yours)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6
iQCVAwUBLhSDDhvikii9febJAQGMYQQAjxpnUlu5mnDxHBcqCCeiu7XhIIw3lhYG
Ecc25u1wuXDqwXK8XPaWbbJYOK9FBEHz8jffLmWNK5CcG1oCO7HzM5rx244kDIYi
/My/79Zrgmcl/D/ZzEntyDF+s74XFe+AiQxowlXcrdzslChf0NTJxnk6MqR7EkuT
4Ix5b0WFS8g=
=awDm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----