From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 21:10:59 -0800 (PST)
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: (2) More on Digital Postage
Message-ID: <199702140510.VAA21678@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May allegedly said:
> 
[...]
> By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut
> violations of the First Amendment.

You are entitled to any tortuous idiosyncratic opinion you care to
hold, of course.

> I understand why the herd _wants_ these
> laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to
> the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it
> is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned.

"Prior restraint" is not a magic key.  Not all speech is protected.  
Of course, once again, you are free to disagree with the massive 
body of legal precedent on this issue.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F