1995-02-09 - Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)

Header Data

From: slowdog <slowdog@wookie.net>
To: N/A
Message Hash: 768e6a4792d81f6d28953b0d943e9dfb5adea1d483ab0f5195c50bfd06548b4d
Message ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950209000839.7928B-100000@chewy.wookie.net>
Reply To: <9502082149.AA28226@tis.com>
UTC Datetime: 1995-02-09 05:08:42 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 21:08:42 PST

Raw message

From: slowdog <slowdog@wookie.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 95 21:08:42 PST
Subject: Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
In-Reply-To: <9502082149.AA28226@tis.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950209000839.7928B-100000@chewy.wookie.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 8 Feb 1995, Carl Ellison wrote:

> >From: jpp@markv.com
> 
> >of the very most important rights.  To hold the owner of a buliten
> >board responsible for the illegal messages posted to it, is to force
> >the buliten board owner to become a government censor in all but name
> >(and wages).
> 
> anyone heard of "no unfunded mandates" ?

This is one of my favorite pet arguments in this case. With the no 
unfunded mandates notion in the air for the States, why can't sysops 
demand the same treatment, given the resources that would have to be 
devoted to tracking content on their sysytems.


- dog







Thread