🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct30.165406.5853@netcom.com>, strnlght@netcom (David Sternlight) writes:
>But it depends on interpretation. Regulating channels is not the
>same as regulating speech.

Channels such as printing presses?

>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)

Technical means such as printing presses?  

>the government
>has the right to regulate those means. One is still free to talk,
>and thus the protection isn't violated.

I disagree.  You could argue that saying something in the air makes
air particles move - you could probably even invoke the interstate
commerce clause by saying that since air particles influence each
other some particles in another state probably move because of the act
of speech and this has an effect on interstate air particle commerce.

Gee, wonder if I could patent the idea and get royalities when the
Supreme Court starts using it.

//Jyrki