On 01/17/2010 12:50 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
By-the-way, there are reasons to believe that Can-Spam could fail a Constitutional challenge, particularly for domain names used in a political or religious context or when it affects the exercise of a fundamental right.
I am going to disagree on this. CAN-SPAM is limited to commercial e-mail.
The V.. g.. r.. a type drug for example, oft the content of spam, pertains, arguably, to the fundamental right of procreation (which would thus trigger some strong Constitutional protections.)
Are Nigerian princes who only need your help to release piles of money engaged in commercial or personal outreach?
Drawing lines between commercial and non-commercial activities are hard and a clever person can slip-and-slide to whichever side of the line is most convenient for a given situation.
Really? I thought you might have read ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728 for some guidance on this. Anyways, if one can't procreate without drugs, I don't think they should be procreating since it is God's will.
To my mind the argument that "not listing myself in whois" ==>therefore==> "an act that is otherwise lawful becomes unlawful" is a very poor argument because it not only ignores the reasons why one might want privacy but, also, goes so far as to switch the burden of proof so that a person must justify his/her privacy rather than putting the burden onto the person who desires to penetrate privacy.
--karl--
The current rule is that one is required to identify him/her/itself when registering a domain. If you buy a house, you list your name on the title. If a third party is listed on the title, they are liable for the damages caused by the house and the house may be taken if the person listed owes money.