Re: Detweiler clone at WS
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-----
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-----
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."
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
participants (4)
-
Duncan Frissell -
Perry E. Metzger -
roy＠sendai.cybrspc.mn.org -
tcmay＠netcom.com