[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Loses in 2nd Circuit
- To: "'dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] 2600 Loses in 2nd Circuit
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 08:43:26 -0800
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Galt [mailto:galt@inconnu.isu.edu]
...
>if one could get the idea across that the click
> of a mouse
> is no harder than the click of a gun and there has been no decision
> declaring the click of a gun to be functional,
...
but ... there hasn't been any ruling that the click of
a gun is speech and therefore protected by the first amendment,
has there?
--
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!