At 11:52 AM 03/01/2000 -0800, Tim May wrote:
>And, critically, the U.S. Constitution provides a solid base that speech
>need not be linked to a True Name. From the basic language of the First to
>the recent cases (Talley, IIRC) about anonymous pamphlets.
Talley was followed by McIntyre vs. Ohio, which expanded it
to make it clear that anonymity applies in election laws as well as
general business and non-business speech.
My brother, a slacker lawyer, has had fun and occasional profit by
suing states that have election laws that haven't caught up with this.
Given the current election, where two of the big-money candidates
(McCain and Bradley) strongly oppose free speech on political issues,
this is relatively topical.
>Further, any person is free to incorporate into his writings the excerpted
>writings of others (modulo copyright laws, which are not relevant for
>obvious reasons). This means that "anonymous recommenters" are fully
>protected.
>
>"Hey, AnonymousRemailerFoo, look at what AnonymousSenderBar just sent me:
>"Request-Recommenting-To: AnonymousRemailerBaz.....
:-)
>Of course, an anonymous remailer is just as protected by the First as this
>hypothetical (and contrived) anonymous recommenter is, but it may help some
>to see just how far-ranging the implications of banning anonymous speech
>would be.
Nice point.
Thanks!
Bill
Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
