At 07:45 31/05/02 -0400, Dale Gardner wrote:
>What's wrong with the findings? I missed something contradictory and don't
>see how it would be struck down on that point...
Findings can't be struck down - they only serve to give an indication of
the purpose, which might be used the help interpret if and of the
substantive provisions of the bill are ambiguous. If the findings are too
ambiguous or contradictory to help, other techniques would be used to
resolve the ambiguity.
>My suggestion would be to write your Senator and ask them to change the law
>so that 'opt out' mailings are prohibited.
It's probably worth noting that even if an opt-in bill were found to
otherwise infringe free speech, it would clearly pass the "appropriate and
adapted to another purpose" (that is, protecting the utility of the
recipients' electronic mailboxes) and should be allowed on those grounds.
>the precedent established
>with unsolicited faxes should carry the day.
Somebody said recently that the TCPA provisions regarding unsolicited faxes
had never been challenged on constitutional grounds. I have not done any
research to verify or contradict this.
______________________________________________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED] IANALY,TINLA Troy Rollo, Sydney, Australia
Fight spam in Australia - Join CAUBE.AU - http://www.caube.org.au/
_______________________________________________
spamcon-general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers
Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body
of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
