On the other hand, part of the rules of being a common carrier are that one is *required* to cooperate with appropriate authorities to prevent this sort of abuse and to catch said abusers if/when it happens. I suspect that Mr. Templeton's lawyer could make a case that by setting up a remailer where one cannot "trace calls," one is violating the requirements of being a common carrier, and thus is responsible for content.
I wonder how this would jive with the factoid someone on this list (don't have the original handy) found a while back about the court ruling in favor of the right to operate under an alias in (constitutionally?) protected, at least in terms of publishing, etc.? I remember the case happening in L.A., I think. Anyway, what are the odds a case could be made that my 'anonymous identity' "fooperson" is a legal pseudonym? Stretching it some, but a possibility, and one case where similarities with publishing can work in favor of privacy.
I believe it was stated (correctly, according to my understanding) that one may use any pseudonym, as long as the intention in using it is not to commit a crime. Copyright infringement _is_, like it or not, a crime. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, any such thing as "a legal pseudonym". -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.