Well, JD, at least one Federal court seems not to agree with your analysis
as evidenced by the injunction.   Moreover, some of your statements below
do not honestly reflect the message I sent you........a private e-mail I
sent you which you turned around, posted to a public list, and then
distorted my position in your own comments.  Granatin did similarly just
yesterday.   Let me guess, you two feel perfectly justified, right?   No
point in having private conversations with you fellows.

The courts have written plenty about commercial speech.  I feel no need to
recount the particulars, except to say that the distinctions you make
between freedoms of speech in a news vehicle vs in ads seem  rather
convenient for people in the journalism profession.  I would point out how
journalists  decry  the built-in bias of  lawyers or physicians or real
estate agents or you name it, when these try to instruct the public about
how to regulate the context and circumstances of their respective
professions.   Yet they seem to see no problem when they do the same.  8-)
Sorry, some folks just do not accept such seemingly self-serving positions.
If it is suspicious for one profession to behave in such a manner, then it
is suspicious for all professions.

At 10:26 PM -0400 9/11/96, JDLas@aol.com wrote:
>On Sept. 10, S. Finer wrote:
>
>>media pundits can spew the radio spectrum....but corporations in other
>>industries cannot do so in other media.......
>>under your view of the Constitution...?  I am always puzzled by
>>journalists who feel that speech for them is more sacred than it is for
>>others.  This interpretation is not in the Constitution, it is a device
>>that journalists preach to protect their economic position, although only
>>1 in a 100 can admit this even to themselves.  It is a profoundly blind
>>spot in media's worldview of itself.
>
>>Media raised holy hell protecting the rights of pornographers, but are
>>opposed to the right to send an unsolicited e-mail of any kind, regardless
>>of purpose........sorry......I see no balance or justice in this
>>perspective......only a gigantic bias pursued as jihad.....
>
>
>Speaking on behalf of the unholy, pornography-loving, corporate-bashing
>liberal media, it strikes me that the key issue here is not censorship of

JD adds the terms "unholy and liberal" .... terms I did not use, nor do I
necessarily hold them in this circumstance.....it appears to be obfuscation
and piling on....... is this method taught in J-school?

>corporations' "right" to send unsolicited e-mail, but a private company's
>(AOL's) right to determine how it wants its private
>delivery system used, given the overwhelming desire of its paying membership
>to be shielded from electronic trash.

Does the phone company have the right to shield its users by blockage from
receiving calls from sources the phone company decides are unwanted?   No,
not a priori.  It can take action after the fact against obscene calls by
specific laws.  Telemarketing regulations are set by states.....not telecom
access providers.

>
>It's not a speech issue.  It's an access issue.

The matter is before the courts now.....it has not been finally decided.
Let's see what transpires...

>Corporations have no more a
>right to send spam out on a private carrier than they have a right to send
>unsolicited ads or messages out on a cable network so that those messages
>land, univited, on a cable customer's television screen.

What?  Cable viewers invite the ads they see?  No, they are broadcast to
all who watch that channel.  The viewers can turn the channel, walk out of
the room, turn off the sound........they do not select the ads that arrive
on their home boxes.


>Would anyone seriously suggest it's "censorship" if businesses began flooding
>this mailing list with spam and the mailing list administrator put a stop to
>it?

This list has a limited distribution according to Steve's private rules.
Steve does not provide Inet access.

Suppose a majority of AOL customers objected to getting immediate messages
from strangers....I hear this complaint from women on AOL especially.  But,
AOL provides a way to block messages from particular addresses.  But in
this case, the AOL management decided to block all incoming messages from a
particular domain, instead of allowing blockage on an individual member
basis.  Similar problem, two distinct solutions.........what was the motive
for the distinction?


>
>Standing behind AOL's rights here hardly qualifies as "an anti-business
>jihad."

You used the term "anti-business jihad" not I.  I said...quoting now

   "Media raised holy hell protecting the rights of pornographers, but are
    opposed to the right to send an unsolicited e-mail of any kind, regardless
    of purpose........sorry......I see no balance or justice in this
    perspective......only a gigantic bias pursued as jihad.....  "

The jihad I suggest is not "anti-business" in nature.  That is not my
point.  News publishing IS a business.  The "jihad" I see is an implicit
belief, which appears to have become a sacred cow, that gives the media (or
press if you prefer) THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE what type communication is
protected by the Constitution, and what type is not.  There is a built-in
bias in this.   The suggested sacred cow "just happens" to defend economic
rights enjoyed by the group holding the belief.

Some media stake-holders want to retain the exclusive nature of their
"spew" rights....by decrying others who might introduce this practice to
interactive media.    This is not real surprising, frankly.  It is rational
economic behavior.  But not balanced, not equal, not cooperative, not
democratic.  Are historically conferred special privileges being defended
by interested special interests?  Maybe.   I am guessing that many folks in
an entrenched ad-supported media view communications access as a zero-sum
game; but isn't it really prisoners' dilemna.....?

(As it happens, I stand steadfastly behind Wal-Mart's right to keep
>Sheryl Crow's records out of their chain; whether it's a wise decision or not
>is another matter.  But it ain't censorship, as some are claiming.)

I agree with your above position.  But Wal-Mart does not provide a
communications access service, like the phone company or AOL.  Moreover,
customers can buy the album elsewhere if they wish to do so.

E-mail account holders do not have to read anything they do not wish to
read.   They can "change the channel" by deleting....it takes about as much
effort as clicking a button on a remote.  If AOL wants to serve its
customers (as you and they claim/imply) then they can allow their users
themselves to choose what they want blocked to their own mail box.  This is
analogous to the PICS solution to the CDA issue.  Let the users decide what
they want blocked on an individual basis.   I am suggesting there are other
motives at work here in AOL's actions.  AOL wants to protect advertising
access to its membership.  If they do not, it degrades the value of their
in-house advertising.  That motive is natural.   But it has troubling
aspects.

Can AOL or MSN block access of the others' users to their own membership,
or to the others' web sites?  As a means of competition...or can they only
use this strategy against much smaller domains with weaker market
influence?  Does this promote concentration?   Is this fair, or does it
diminish competition in the industry as a whole?




+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
This message was posted to ONLINE-NEWS. http://www.planetarynews.com/o-n.html

------------------------------

End of online-news-digest V1 #782
*********************************


From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Thu Sep 12 04:53:45 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (majordom@marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id EAA24272 ; for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 04:53:44 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id AAA27483 for online-news-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:25:24 -0600
Received: from server.indra.com (server.indra.com [204.144.142.2]) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA27478 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:25:19 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id AAA02005; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:10:37 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from mail.Clark.Net by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id AAA10294; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:10:36 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from [168.143.2.123] (xerxes-ppp.clark.net [168.143.2.123]) by mail.Clark.Net (8.7.3/8.6.5) with ESMTP id CAA12016; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 02:10:23 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender: xerxes@clark.net (Unverified)
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: <960911222645_520871673@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: JDLas@aol.com