NODE 57b7b9f4Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
jamesd@echeque.comSat, 16 Mar 1996 02:16:25 +0800
Timothy C. May wrote:
>>Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform
>>you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please
>>retract them, now.
Bill Frantz wrote:
>Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is
>unconstitutional.
I see: The bill of rights reads:
"Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of *political*
speech".
Never knew that until now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind |
of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the |
arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com
NODE 2ee951e8Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+@CMU.EDU>Sat, 16 Mar 1996 08:15:09 +0800
Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 15-Mar-96 Re: FCC-type Regulation of
.. by jamesd@echeque.com
> Bill Frantz wrote:
> >Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is
> >unconstitutional.
>
> I see: The bill of rights reads:
> "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of *political*
> speech".
> Never knew that until now.
Thanks for clarifying. Now I know that Congress can pass a law muzzling
the New York Times Co., Inc.
More seriously, society accepts greater limitations on commercial
speech, and I don't find them nearly as odious as I do ones that
restrict political speech.
-Declan