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

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@imsi.com>
To: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Message Hash: c088be982a2c633ed025d816cdf97bfa095d3a9dc09a59cd9996ea6517f68d93
Message ID: <9407011312.AA16277@snark.imsi.com>
Reply To: <940701.070436.2K1.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-01 13:12:16 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 06:12:16 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 94 06:12:16 PDT
To: roy@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org (Roy M. Silvernail)
Subject: Re: Detweiler clone at WS
In-Reply-To: <940701.070436.2K1.rusnews.w165w@sendai.cybrspc.mn.org>
Message-ID: <9407011312.AA16277@snark.imsi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Roy M. Silvernail says:
> > A BBS is a publication.  The
> > 1st Amendment was specifically written to outlaw the British licensing of 
> > publications.  No risk.
> 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).

Untrue as of Tuesday, when the Supremes came out with a decision
recognising (to a limited extent) the 1st amendment rights of cable
companies. However, you are right that no direct precedent exists.