On Wednesday, September 5, 2001, at 07:22 PM, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, Tim May wrote:

...

There may be an item in the Cyphernomicon about this misconception, that common carrier status is something people apply for. It used to be claimed by some (don't here it as much anymore) than even bookstores could be treated as common carriers "so long as they didn't screen the books they sold."

Interesting.

So what does this mean for remailers that do screen content? At the very least, the mixmaster software comes with the ability for individuals to block themselves (or other people -- it's not authenticated) from receiving mail from the remailer.

So, in effect, the remailer is screening mail for that recipient, and discarding it.

(And there are, or have been, remailers that screen messages for "bad words." The messages are then dumped into a file for review.)

How does this affect "common carrier" status?

See Greg Broiles' summary for a more accurate summary than I could do. But not all is lost. I still believe the First is a bright line: the First does not provide for government regulation of those who are not using "the public airwaves" (cough cough). Newspapers don't need to seek licenses of any kind, for example. (A so-called "business license," not that I'm supporting such things, is basically just a fee to operate a money-making business in some location. There is no discretion for allowing some newspaper and disallowing others, nor for "regulating" newspapers.) Any proposal to license those who use the Net will face a lot of First Amendment challenges. I don't think the high court would ultimately find any such regulations constitutional. --Tim May