From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:40:03 -0800 (PST)
To: "John C. Randolph" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: More on digital postage
Message-ID: <199702150439.UAA04775@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 03:31 AM 2/14/97 -0800, John C. Randolph wrote:
>
>Tim may says:
>
>>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut
>>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these
>>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to
>>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it
>>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned.
>
>I have to disagree here.  The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised
>use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. 

However, you connect that fax machine to a phone line, when you know full 
well that should it be enabled to do so, it will automatically pick up the 
phone when it "hears" a ring, and will print out a fax based on information 
provided.  It isn't clear why sending a fax is any "wronger" than mailing 
junk mail, or making a (voice) phone call to somebody.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com