1994-07-01 - Re: Detweiler clone at WS

Header Data

From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
To: “Roy M. Silvernail” <roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Message Hash: 4a57f4beaecfc4ac4649763d1352224c660a3e98aef3e33c044a58a8981c3b38
Message ID: <Pine.3.87.9407011343.A11973-0100000@panix.com>
Reply To: <940701.070436.2K1.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-01 17:18:53 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 10:18:53 PDT

Raw message

From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 10:18:53 PDT
To: "Roy M. Silvernail" <roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Subject: Re: Detweiler clone at WS
In-Reply-To: <940701.070436.2K1.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9407011343.A11973-0100000@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Fri, 1 Jul 1994, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:

> Until some case law comes about that recognizes this, It Just Ain't So.
> Right now, electronic publishing isn't recognized by the courts as
> publishing (because we don't kill trees, I suppose).
> - -- 
> Roy M. Silvernail  []  roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org

I know the courts have never ruled in a case in point but is there any 
doubt that BBS are publications.  They are in text for the most part.  
They resemble the "Broadsides" that were a big part of public discourse 
in 1789 in the Confederacy (The US under the Articles of Confederation).

What are they, chopped liver?