E-Mail Differs From Broadcasting

Ethan Tucker's Feb. 20 column, "The Wild, Wild Internet," reflected a complete misunderstanding of both the Internet and of free speech. Contrary to what Mr. Tucker writes, e-mail is not analogous to the telephone. The ruling to which the column refers in order to claim that free speech does not hold for telephone conversations of course applies to a technology which no longer exists, namely party lines. On today's telephone systems, content of conversations is unregulated because the technology is fundamentally different than it was in 1883. In 1883, conversations between two parties were not private, and could be heard by other parties on the same circuit.

Today, all telephone calls are point-to-point, and can not be intercepted by the unwitting Ned Flanders of the world who might find themselves offended. In other words, as long as a telephone call is solicited, or personal, it is fully protected by free speech statues, despite the contentions of Mr. Tucker.

Similarly, solicited e-mails should be fully protected by free speech. The unsolicited "broadcasting" of bigoted emails which Mr. Tucker generalizes to stand for all forms of e-mail is separate and fully distinct matter. Even Internet sites which "distribute racist vitriol" are protected under free speech laws, because unlike unsolicited e-mail, the user must take a deliberate action to receive them.

Finally, I don't know where Mr. Tucker is from, but in the United States our right to "preach hate and bigotry on the town green" is explicitly guaranteed. I respect Mr. Tucker's freedom to opine on subjects that he clearly knows nothing about, but I wish that he wouldn't do it in the public medium of a newspaper--he is himself a decent argument against freedom of speech. --Joseph R. Varet '98