At 10:34 PM -0500 3/21/00, David Honig wrote:
>At 12:19 PM 3/21/00 -0500, Ed Gerck wrote:
>> Also, in the US as well as in most
>>countries, a newspaper can protect the anonymity of its source, a
>>private company does not have to disclose its statements, etc. --
> >all, expressions of privacy rights.
>
>That's going away now that everyone's a publisher.
>
More to the point, the First Amendment is _not_, repeat _not_, a
protection against subpoenas, warrants, etc. At least not according
to the United States Constitution.
"Wired" has no more constitutional protections than Jim Bell has.
However, various states have enacted so-called "shield laws," and
some scholars take the outcomes of various court cases (like Zenger,
like Sullivan) to mean that newspapers have some special magical
First Amendment protections which ordinary proles and sheeple don't
have. Balderdash.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
