On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 02:54 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> And if it *were* free speech, I would defend it, as I have defended
> other
> free speech causes on the 'net for over twenty years.
>
> But it's not. It's not speech at all. It's conduct.
that's your interpretation, and it's one the court pretty strongly
disagrees with. So you're supporting YOUR IDEA of free speech, now how
it is being interpreted by the court of law. ery different beasts. But
at the core of the spam argument, too, since so many define free speech
that way. it's easy to support free speech for stuff you want to hear.
--
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech, Apple IS&T E-mail systems
chuq@apple.com
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
