From: "Scott V. McGuire" <svmcguir@syr.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 23:38:36 -0800 (PST)
To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
In-Reply-To: <v03007800aeec96b09112@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95L01at.960130021446.937A-100000@homebox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 29 Dec 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 1:35 PM -0800 12/29/96, Steve Schear wrote:
> 
... snip ...
 
> 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.)
> 
> 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).
> 

Unless the regulations apply to UPS, FED-EX etc., I don't see how the two
situations are comparable.  The government refusing to deliver packages
(via the USPS) unless certain conditions are met is not the same as saying
no one may deliver unless those conditions are met.  Now, passing email 
from its source, through  several remailers and to its destination does
not involve any government agency.  The government may still try to
control it, but they can't justify it by analogy to labeling of normal
mail (which they are involved in delivering).  

>
... snip ...

> As to how such regulations about origin-labeling might develop, here are
> several points:
> 
... snip ...

> 3. Civil libertarians will wail and will cite the 1956 Supreme Court case
> about leafletting. Lawyers on the other side will point out that all that
> is being affected is _mail_, not anonymous speech in public fora (though
> restrictions on that may be tried, too). That is, that the _content_ of a
> package, a la the Postal Service I.D. situation, is not at issue, only the
> valid identification of point of origin.
> 

And the civil libertarians ought to reply that email is like _mail_ in
name only.

>
... more snip ....

> --Tim May
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
> We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 

- --------------------
Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir@syr.edu>
PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir
Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E  96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMQ3Kdt7xoXfnt4lpAQFCDwP/T95pprHGaq/KkFXe4YT1yBLIo5HL8po4
f20LIRJmP45Pp5x3zp/SSW8wOd+9DsQxkvNau7jOJrk0a4jmaqI/uzgbjkefIjwg
nAzEiQmnIC7wWeiTP0SsZrcdt34sVkwHERmu2nvttd3y5VAfS+rIb716dsnuGtWF
TY/geMGRrd8=
=RK96
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----