🚀 go-pugleaf

Thus said strnlght@netcom.com (David Sternlight):
>In response to a comment that the Feds have the right to regulate
>communications, Jyrki quotes the first amendment back at me.
>
>But it depends on interpretation. Regulating channels is not the
>same as regulating speech. A strict constructionist would say
>that one can say what one likes into the air via one's unaided
>voice. But as soon as technical means intervene (such as the use of
>a megaphone in a public park, or the use of e-mail) the government
>has the right to regulate those means. One is still free to talk,
>and thus the protection isn't violated.

>By the way, even strict construction has limits, as in the Supreme
>Court decision that the right to free speech does not extend to
>falsely crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Use of a megaphone in a public park forces others to listen who may not
wish to.  Use of the public airwaves is a special case because it is a
scarce resource.  Use of your voice to shout "Fire!" in a theater
directly endangers others.

Exactly which of these legal justifications do you believe applies to
email, and why?
-- 
Marc VanHeyningen    mvanheyn@whale.cs.indiana.edu    MIME & RIPEM accepted


Patriotism is, in fact, the *first* refuge of the scoundrel.