Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)

[Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM]

"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii at amaranth.com> writes:

> In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970608053415.20770A-100000 at well.com>, on 06/08/97
>    at 07:36 AM, Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> said:
>
> >I don't think commercial speech should be treated as second-class speech.
> >But my position is hardly surprising.
>
> Well I think that there are some that would confuse the issue between 1st
> Amendment free speech and the issues surrounding fraud. Especially those
> in government who write the laws that regulate commercial speech.

Sure - it's their means of livelyhood :-)

Now, "fraud" suggests that the onus is on the gumbint to prove that the
claim is false.

However if I were to market "borshch" by mail order as a cure for cancer,
I'd be asked to "prove" in some ridiculous unscientific ways that it does
indeed cure cancer - spending $100M, which only the few large drug companies
can affort - suits them and the FDA just fine.

Troll: and how about them proposed restrictions on tobacco advertising...

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps