[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers
- From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
--- Jeme A Brelin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Um, so modify his analogy so that you can have your name removed from the
> "child molestors" list if you can prove you're not a child molestor.
> Yay. It's still "guilty until proven innocent".
Child molestation is a felony. Fabricated accusations are banned by laws on
slander, libel, and defamation. If the accusation doesn't fall into those
categories, then it is protected speech. It might be unethical and
irresponsible speech, but the best response to that category of speech is
battle in the court of ideas, not the court of the government.
> No, but it requries CONVICTION, doesn't it? Whereas the RBL just requires
> REPORTS of spam.
The RBL could choose to block anyone for any reason, short of commercial uses
that violate discrimination laws. I think the KKK could probably run a
noncommercial ISP that filtered people based on race if it really wanted to.
> But a prescriptive solution does not exist that does not cause the undue
> restriction of legally protected speech.
You never explained the right to speech which allows you to send email
transforms itself into the right to have the attention of the recipient against
Does Tom Brokaw's mailroom, which filters his postal mail, violate my right to
send him a letter? I don't think so.
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.