Melon traffickers --> Soul traffickers

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Wed Sep 5 19:43:56 PDT 2001



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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list