Cc: online-news@marketplace.com
Sender: owner-online-news@marketplace.com
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO
X-Status: 

Line by line Replies to JD's thoughtful note.

At 8:44 PM -0400 9/12/96, JDLas@aol.com wrote:
>To XERXES:
>
>Mea culpa for me as well.  99% of the emails I get are from mailing lists;
>i'd no idea that yours was a private message. [snip]

hey, no big deal...I have a well-hardened hide...as one might expect....

>I still disagree with your premise, though.  The phone companies are publicly
>regulated utilities.  AOL is not.  It's a critical distinction.

it is a critical distinction...but the phone companies were not always
subject to the FCC.....does AOL have any real competition now that Prodigy
and CompuServe are falling away, and MSN is Inet focused and small?

>To suggest
>that AOL is a quasi-public carrier, as some suggest (including the
>plaintiffs, no doubt), is fraught with peril.  Would a Nazi hate group then
>have a constitutional right to have a Nazi chat room on AOL?

I do not see a peril as you do.  I see no problem with a Nazi chat room on
AOL (as long as parents can keep their kids out of it) or elsewhere.  Have
no problem with other types of hate groups having chat rooms.  Let these
fringe types chat their heads off....who cares.  I feel that folks have a
right to hate if they want to do so.  I only care if haters conspire to
violate criminal laws or the rights of citizens.  That I object to.  So, I
want the police (FBI) to have the authority to monitor areas online where
the fringe types gather, including being able to decrypt closed
communications.   If they conspire to violate the law, bust them.
Otherwise, let them wear themselves out talking (as long as parents can
keep their kids away) about how much they hate (or lust after) x, y, or z.



>I do agree that the best solution lies in giving individual users' the
>ability to block or receive such commercial messages.  But until that comes
>along, I think it's a long stretch to suggest that anyone has a
>"constitutional" right to engage in spamming on a private carrier.

I think a court will have to decide.  A private carrier can be exclusive or
open to all (common carrier) and the distinction has some bearing on speech
rights, IMHO.

>As for Donovan White's observation:
>
>>So that leaves content. And for an industry that almost
>>unanimously opposes the CDA, it doesn't hold much water to then turn around
>>and demand that carriers prevent the distribution of information based on
>>the content of that information.

Personally, I find Donovan's comments directly on point here.  I am
troubled by the logical blind-spot this dispute raises.  It is inconsistent
to despise the CDA and spammers simultaneously, and reflects a personal or
ideological prejudice more than concern for Con law.

>What most bothers me are the in-your-face, dishonest, deceptive, misleading
>come-ons that are becoming more and more ubiquitous. Given that AOL has
>neither the resources nor the ability to screen every particular message --
>nor would i want them to -- the best solution it could engineer is to
>prohibit all such advertisements.

I just got a ridiculous snail-mail scam letter from Nigeria...it is
laughable.  No one but an idiot would fall for it.  Should the post office
stop all mail from Nigeria?  No.  Individuals need to look after
themselves.  Caveat emptor.......has been the byword for millenia.  If
individuals on the Net want to lock out a domain, fine...they should have
that right and capability.  Should this decision be made for them, perhaps
without their knowledge.....No.

>It's no contradiction to oppose the CDA -- a blatantly unconstitutional
>governmental action -- and support the right of a private carrier to set
>broad, general parameters in deciding whether it wishes to serve its users'
>interests or the special interests of outsiders.

Simply do not agree.  The CDA, whose language I objected to, has had a
salutary impact, ...namely the creation of PICS out of industry concern.
The same solution is appropriate for online carriers....namely, let them
provide domain-filtering software to their members, who can decide for
themselves what they want to let-in or lock-out.

The Panix.com counter-spam was going overboard...it invited retaliation.
My guess is that the Panix.com folks had no idea the spammers were as
sophisticated or well-financed as they are.  Alternatively, the
counter-spam may be coming from others factions harboring a grudge against
Panix, (see the 2400 ngrps)  knowing that the commercial spammers will
automatically be blamed.   Who?  Some suspect competitive NYC ISP
groups....those who want to strike a blow against spammers and Panix, at
the same time, in secret.


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

From owner-online-news@marketplace.com Fri Sep 13 02:08:19 1996
Received: from marketplace.com (marketplace.com [206.168.5.232]) by cnj.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA08596 ; for ; Fri, 13 Sep 1996 02:08:18 -0400
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by marketplace.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id VAA13345 for online-news-outgoing; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:26:19 -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 VAA13337 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:26:13 -0600
Received: from indra.com by server.indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id VAA29084; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:11:13 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from relay5.UU.NET by indra.com (8.7.4/Spike-8-1.0)
	id VAA26250; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 21:11:10 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from uucp5.UU.NET by relay5.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(peer crosschecked as: uucp5.UU.NET [192.48.96.36])
	id QQbgxw00666; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:11:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from lvsun.UUCP by uucp5.UU.NET with UUCP/RMAIL
        ; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 23:11:08 -0400
Received: from bear.noname by lvsun.COM (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA14412; Thu, 12 Sep 96 20:02:07 PDT
Received: from peep.lasvegassun.com by bear.noname (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA02636; Thu, 12 Sep 96 20:02:06 PDT
Received: by peep.lasvegassun.com with Microsoft Mail
	id <01BBA0E5.42420B00@peep.lasvegassun.com>; Thu, 12 Sep 1996 20:02:00 -0700
Message-Id: <01BBA0E5.42420B00@peep.lasvegassun.com>