Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> From: hal@finney.org
>
> >Well, one use of the Internet is for publishing web pages, which
> >is akin to broadcasting. Presumably your ban would need to apply
> >to web publishers in addition to TV, right?
>
> Yes
I would say not. Web page publishing is publishing, while mass email is a
broadcast medium. The two are different. One depends on push, the other on pull.
It might be argued that because web publishing can be so up to the minute, it
might legalistically be considered more like broadcasting. I do like the idea of
waiting periods. If the 2nd amendment can have a 3 day waiting muzzle on it, the
same thing should apply to speech.
>
> >An interesting example in the recent election was Matt Drudge,
> >whose site drudgereport.com published the early exit poll results,
> >contravening the stated policy of the consortium which conducted
> >the polls, Voter News Service. He may still get sued for this,
> >we'll see. Would you muzzle Matt Drudge? Is he merely an
> >influential individual, or does he count as a broadcaster? How to
> >decide? What happens as others become successful publishing their
> >own opinions?
>
> I'm not muzzling anyone, I'm talking about delaying talking about
> an on going process till it's completed. As I've already pointedout we have reasonable time delays on the Second Amendment already,
> why not the first?
>
> At some point individuals become "common carriers" and subject to
> regulation.
I would say that the standard for that should be set at interstate communication
and more than what? In terms of audience, if there is no associative enclosure
on audience membership (i.e. if you are not members of the same group, if you
have no registration and/or subscription process, your content is freely
available to all) then it might be more practically considered a broadcast, as
spam is for similar reasons.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT