cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-07 - Re: Responses to “Spam costs and questions” (long)

Header Data

From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
To: declan@well.com
Message Hash: b43857d820ccba40b1967db5dd0ee874a92752504346a4588135ded7ab169dc7
Message ID: <199706071754.MAA01524@manifold.algebra.com>
Reply To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970607133514.655C-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-07 18:10:20 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:10:20 +0800

Raw message

From: ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 02:10:20 +0800
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970607133514.655C-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
Message-ID: <199706071754.MAA01524@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> 
> Such a law would be unconstitutional, I believe, and unjust. It's
> compelled speech: the government forcing you to say something.
> Depending on how it's worded, it could also impact core political
> speech, something the courts generally don't like.
> 

Declan,

There is a lot of commercial compelled speech. For example,
mutual funds must say that past performance is not a guarantee
of future results.

Do you find this kind of compelled speech unconstitutional?

igor

> 
> 
> On Fri, 6 Jun 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > 
> > Is there any justification for a law that would require senders to make
> > filtering easier, e.g., by attaching a [COMMERCIAL] tag to all UCEs.
> > 
> > 	- Igor.
> > 
> > 
> 



	- Igor.

Thread