At  2:36 AM 10/28/93 +0000, Tansin A. Darcos & Company wrote:
>[. . .]
>Another thing.  If a company were to create a series of
>advertisements connected with an editorial, and NSF were to
>threaten disconnection, it would be on very weak First Amendment
>grounds, since in effect it would be ordering the discontinuance
>of material based on content.
 
The Court has long made a distinction between commercial and non-commercial
speech. Commercial speech may be regulated or even prohibited: when was the
last time you saw a TV ad for a cigarette? The NSF would be on strong
ground, indeed. They could even be somewhat arbitrary in permitting some
advertisements and not others.
 
>In short, what you will have to do is set up a kill file for
>messages from known advertisers and ignore those addresses[. . . .]
 
That's about the only sure solution. If you never see the advertisements,
you're not bothered by them--assuming that you're not bandwidth-challenged.
You're also not going to buy the products, which is the strongest statement
you can make to the advertiser. You can also complain and let others know.
 
And, if people don't do this, then it would seem obvious that the
advertisement is either welcome or not offensive. Or, in other words,
people are happy with the way things are. Somehow, I just don't see that
happening....
 
>Paul Robinson -- [log in to unmask] / [log in to unmask] /
 
b&
 
----
Ben Goren
 Arizona State University School of Music
 Internet: [log in to unmask]
 BITNet: BenGoren AT ASU