Re: Junk mailers and scientologists for freedom!?

CobraBoy (
Mon, 09 Sep 1996 12:44:02 -0700

At 09:41 AM 9/9/96 -0700, Dan Kohn wrote:
><> wrote:
>>Where the heck in the first amendment does it say we have
>>a right to distribute junk mail (through AOL even!)?
>In Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126
>(1989) (a dial-a-porn case), the Supreme Court ruled that commercial
>speech is specifically less protected than other speech. This is one of
>the reasons that the CDA was overturned: Congress was encouraging
>Internet content providers to use methods (like requiring a credit card)
>that were suitable for commercial speech (like dial-a-porn) but totally
>unsuited for non-commercial speech (like AIDS information on the Net).
>Add in the fact that junk mail has almost no cost to send, but does
>entail a cost to receive (the time to read it or delete it), and I would
>think that AOL is on firm ground for blocking the sites. Still, I have
>no issue with the judge granting a temporary restraining order to AOL
>until he examines the facts. After all, eternal vigilance is the price
>of something or another.

Well just playing devil's advocate here, time to dispose of it is less than
time to shift through junk mail in my mail box and throw it away.



** History 101** Hiroshima 45 - Chernobyl 86 - Windows 95 ============================================= "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste, and what that means is, I don't mean that in a small way I mean that in a big way. I have a problem with the fact that they just make really third rate products."

Steve Jobs, Triumph of the Nerds, PBS Documentary