From: amp@pobox.com
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 03:21:37 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
In-Reply-To: <v03007800aeec96b09112@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Chameleon.851944760.amp@tx86-8>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> As to the "anonymous speech" rulings, I mainly know of the 1956 Georgia
> case, in which the Supremes struck down a law requiring that leaflets
> handed out have a name attached. I don't know of more recent rulings,
> especially ones related to the Internet.
> 
> (Why this is important is that the Supreme Court has often differentiated
> between types of speech. For example, ask a liquor or tobacco company if it
> has "freedom of speech." Ask those who put labels on their products if they
> have freedom of speech--the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug
> Administration, etc., declare what may not be said, what must be said, etc.
> First Amendment scholars are of course well aware that the First is not
> treated as an absolute.)
=snip=

you might want to check out ...

McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE,
DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
certiorari to the supreme court of ohio
No. 93-986.   Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995


which can be found at 
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZS.filt   --- syllabus
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZO.filt   --- opinion
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC.filt   --- concurring
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZC1.filt  --- concurring
ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/93-986.ZD.filt   --- dissenting


a snippet from the synopsis...

After petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express
 the views of ``CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS'' oppos-
 ing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for
 violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribu-
 tion of campaign literature that does not contain the name and
 address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature. 
 The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Ap-
 peals reinstated the fine.  In affirming, the State Supreme Court
 held that the burdens 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amend-
 ment rights were ``reasonable'' and ``nondiscriminatory'' and therefore
 valid.  Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons
 who distribute campaign materials containing fraud, libel, or false
 advertising and to provide voters with a mechanism for evaluating
 such materials, the court distinguished Talley v. California, 362
 U. S. 60, in which this Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting
 all anonymous leafletting. 




------------------------
Name: amp
E-mail: amp@pobox.com
Date: 12/30/96
Time: 05:11:23
Visit http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum

EARTH FIRST! We'll strip mine the other planets later.
------------------------