Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mnemonic
From: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality
Message-ID: <37030@ut-emx>
Date: 10 Sep 90 04:40:47 GMT
References: <36823@ut-emx.UUCP> <20062@well.sf.ca.us> <36649@ut-emx.utexas.edu> <1990Sep10.001627.4360@svc.portal.com>
Sender: news@ut-emx
Reply-To: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 25

In article <1990Sep10.001627.4360@svc.portal.com> daven@svc.portal.com writes:
>
>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?

There is no *legal* basis for thinking that PHRACK has a claim to
First Amendment protection that is at all inferior to that of 
The New York Times. (This is true in spite of Gene Spafford's
expressions of disbelief.)

As a practical matter, government agents have been far more willing
to take action that shut down the computer equivalents of publications
and printing presses. This is the sense in which the term "inferior"
has been applied (by me, since you're quoting my posting).


--Mike



Mike Godwin, UT Law School  |"If the doors of perception were cleansed
mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | every thing would appear to man as it is,
(512) 346-4190              | infinite."
                            |                 --Blake