> On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Terry Carroll wrote:
> >[...]
> > interpretation, and b) if it's correct, than a lot of nonjunk mail
> > violates the Act, too (e.g., it's illegal to send an email from a computer
> > that does not automatically add your telephone number).
> However, it could be argued (*IF* email is considered equivalent to fax)
> that a valid email return-address is equivalent to having the phone
> number. Regardless, the argument appeared fairly weak on the many Usenet
> and Internet fora where it's been discussed.
Very weak. You have to convince the judge that one part of the statute
must be read literally in order to capture your definition of "telephone
fax machine," while another portion must be read non-literally, to
capture your definition of "telephone number," and all the while making
sure he doesn't pay any attention to the fact that email never came up in
the discussion of the bills when they were reviewed on the floor and in
the committees.
It could happen, but only if you have a judge who figures out the result
he wants first and works backwards to justify it.
-- Terry Carroll | "Al Gore is doing for the federal government what Santa Clara, CA | he did for the Macarena. He's removing all the carroll@tjc.com | unnecessary steps." Modell delenda est | - Bill Clinton, September 20, 1996
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved