From: "L-Soft list server at America Online (1.8c)"             <LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 08:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Rejected posting to CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Message-ID: <199805191505.IAA03014@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


You  are  not  authorized  to  send  mail  to  the  CYBERIA-L  list  from  your
cypherpunks@TOAD.COM account. You might be authorized  to send to the list from
another of  your accounts,  or perhaps  when using  another mail  program which
generates slightly  different addresses, but  LISTSERV has no way  to associate
this other account or address with yours. If you need assistance or if you have
any question  regarding the policy  of the  CYBERIA-L list, please  contact the
list owners: CYBERIA-L-request@LISTSERV.AOL.COM.

------------------------ Rejected message (36 lines) --------------------------
Received: from netcomsv.netcom.com (uucp1-b.netcom.com [163.179.3.1])
	  by listserv.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.8)
	  with ESMTP id LAA20089 for <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>;
	  Tue, 19 May 1998 11:05:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ca07b8bl (pax-ca14-19.ix.netcom.com [204.31.233.83])
	by netcomsv.netcom.com (8.8.5-r-beta/8.8.5/(NETCOM v1.01)) with SMTP id IAA23186;
	Tue, 19 May 1998 08:05:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980518104054.008bd710@popd.ix.netcom.com>
X-Sender: stewarts@popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified)
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32)
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:40:54 -0700
To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications              <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>,
        CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
From: Bill Stewart <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: regulating speech (was: DNS)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.16.19980515115128.34271d5c@pop.radix.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:41 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Donald Weightman wrote:
>I wonder if  LEBRON V. AMTRAK is relevant here.  There the Court extended
>the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of,
>the government in the case of an artist who argued successfully that Amtrak
>had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political
>message.
>
>The devil is in the details -- of InterNIC's creation and operation, vs.
>Amtrak's.

The Supreme Court just decided that Tax-funded radio/tv stations
don't have to include all candidates for an office in their debates
if they don't feel like it, based on First Amendment reasons.
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639