Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!portal!sv!daven
From: daven@svc.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality
Message-ID: <1990Sep10.001627.4360@svc.portal.com>
Date: 10 Sep 90 00:16:27 GMT
References: <36823@ut-emx.UUCP> <20062@well.sf.ca.us> <36649@ut-emx.utexas.edu>
Organization: Software Ventures
Lines: 25

In article <36649@ut-emx.utexas.edu> mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin) writes:
>The point I believe Barlow was making, and the point I want to make
>here, is that Phrack, though admittedly a publication, was considered
>"inferior" in terms of its claims of First Amendment protection, and
>that this attitude was reflected both in the characterization of Neidorf's
>activity as part of a "scheme to defraud" and in the decision to
>indict.

Can someone explain what the legal issue is surrounding the claim that
Phrack is "inferior"?  First off, what does the term mean in this
context? Then how does it relate to the First Amendment protection?

I'm not well versed in legalise, but I do want to understand what is at
issue here.

Thanks!

Dave Newman


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Newman - Sofware Ventures        | daven@svc.portal.com | AppleLink: D0025
Berkeley, CA  (415) 644-3232          | AOL: MicroPhone      | CIS: 76004,2161
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------