Re: Intel v. Hamidi

To CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
From Mike Godwin <mnemonic@WELL.COM>
Date Sun, 2 May 1999 11:26:58 -0400
In-Reply-To <3.0.2.32.19990501185911.00a87d70@pop.mindspring.com >
References <000301be940c$93b84cc0$65961b26@deepthought > <Pine.SOL.3.95.990501143248.4803C-100000@comp >
Reply-To Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> 
Bob Stock writes:

>1.  Was the CompuServe case correctly decided?

As I've already said, I am, shall we say, rather sceptical of the
trespass-against-chattels approach to offending e-mail. This partly because
I think the intellectual basis it is rather weak, and partly because I
think this approach may lead to unintended consequences.

>4.  Do you agree with this statement from the CompuServe case:
>
>"In the present action, CompuServe is a private company. Moreover, the mere
>judicial enforcement of neutral trespass laws by the private owner of
>property does not alone render it a state actor. Rotunda & Nowak, Treatise
>on Constitutional Law @ 16.3, 546 (West 1992). Defendants do not argue that
>CompuServe is anything other than a private actor."

I think it's difficult to harmonize this statement with the holdings in New
York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny.  C


--Mike


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...."
           --Walt Whitman
Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 212-888-7811.
His book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at
        http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial thread listing:
Re: Intel v. Hamidi, (continued)