From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 03:33:07 -0800 (PST)
To: "Timothy C. May" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19961230062451.00bbb6b4@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 02:08 PM 12/29/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>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.

This was upheld by another recent case involving an anonymous pamphlet from
an Ohio woman.

>If origin-labelling is unconstitutional, as Steve claims, then on what
>basis can the U.S. Postal Service require identification for packages over
>one pound? Surely what is inside the package may be considered "speech" (by
>those interested in pushing the point).

The new rule doesn't require that ID be presented at the Post Office.  You
just  have to present the package in person and fill out a form.  They
could try and require ID later, of course.

>And there are many other situations where anonymity is no longer allowed,
>where once it was. The gambling example Brian Davis brought up is an
>example: for the purposes of tax collection, regulation of gambling, etc.,
>winners of nontrivial amounts must identify themselves.

They have to identify themselves they don't have to present identification
(an important distinction).  Brian also pointed out that the guy could have
avoided the problem if he'd been smarter.

>1. A sharp increase in spamming, mass mailing, threatening letters,
>etc....sort of like the "denial of service" and spamming/looping attacks
>seen here on Cypherpunks, and being seen widely on the Net. This will
>increase pressure to "do something about it." A Senator Exon type person
>will introduce legislation to require e-mail be labelled.

If they have yet to successfully mandate positive ID for bank or credit
accounts, how can they expect to successfully mandate positive ID for
something as ephemeral as an Email account?

>In closing, I think the Supreme Court will, when it eventually agrees to
>hear a relevant case, will differentiate between protected anonymous speech
>in public forums and the labelling of sealed packages, sealed letters, and
>sealed e-mail. They will argue along the lines of saying that the labelling
>law is for the protection of society and not for tracking down dissidents.
>The effect will of course be the same, but this will be the fig leaf which
>allows them to uphold such laws.

Though they have not done so over the several centuries we've had anonymous
postal mail.

DCF