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.