Re: Spam Prevention Bill

Erik Oliver <oliver[_at_]dolphin.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
> Under Smith's bill and a similar bill in California and Nevada,
> subscribers to a list like Roman-L would not have a cause of action
> to Roman-L lists because all posts would be solicitied.

My point was not about my subscribers -- I specifically mentioned that I feel I'm covered there -- but about any discussions on other e-mail lists or stemming from one; even on CNI-COPYRIGHT I seem to recall the posting of commercial website addresses as illustrations of some point or another.

   In a discussion, no specific permission is granted by any of us to be given any particular information onlist or off; notwithstanding, it is normal that we should receive unsolicited information. This seems to me to strike at freedom of speech?

   Speaking of which, a solicited request :-) ! Do you have addresses for websites with texts of either of the 2 bills you mention above?

Bill Thayer
RomanSites-L
<petworth[_at_]suba.com> Received on Thu May 29 1997 - 11:09:21 GMT