Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!funic!santra!news
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: U.S. consitution [was: Re: Musing on Constitutionality]
Message-ID: <1990Sep9.220203.17233@santra.uucp>
Date: 9 Sep 90 22:02:03 GMT
References: <11503@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <82778@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <11521@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1990Sep3.182712.2260@world.std.com> <11548@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <12945@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system)
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Lines: 46
In-Reply-To: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)

I feel kinda silly citing the U.S. constitution to Spaf a second time
in a short time a bit far from the U.S.  But then, Bush & Gorba were
here just today discussing important matters (so they say) under ten
miles from where I sit now so maybe I live in an important place ;-)

In article <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs (Gene Spafford) writes:
>The first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law that
>abridges the freedom of the press.  That means, at least, there can be
>no prior restraint.  It also does NOT mean that the "press" has any
>immunity from the law.  It furthermore does not define "the press."

Begin quote
                                   AMENDMENT I
 
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

End quote

Nothing at all is said about 'the press'.

[ The first citing for Spaf was when Spaf stated on Risks 10.25 that
"The purpose of copyright is to protect the commercial interest of the
copyright holder (author or publisher)."  This is not so.  From the
U.S. Constitution Art 1.8:

"The Congress shall have power ..... To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries."
]

>I still contend that there is a significant difference between an
>established newspaper and something run off in one's basement.
>I have asked if there are any lawyers out there who *know* if that
>difference has ever been the subject of a court case or law, or if
>there is a formal legal definition of what "the press" is.

When talking about freedom of speech, I don't see any reason why there
should be a difference, neither have I heard of a difference
practised.  So maybe Spaf should point out why a difference would be
needed or point out some references where a difference has been
practised.  In short, Spaf, where did you get the idea of the difference ?

//Jyrki