Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
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
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
participants (2)
-
Declan B. McCullagh -
jamesd@echeque.com