[81387] in Cypherpunks
Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Igor Chudov @ home)
Sat Jun 7 15:38:26 1997
To: declan@well.com
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 1997 12:54:04 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: ichudov@algebra.com, devnull@manifold.algebra.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970607133514.655C-100000@cp.pathfinder.com> from "Declan McCullagh" at Jun 7, 97 01:37:08 pm
From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Reply-To: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
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.
