On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:50:25 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
What's been banned is a certain class of commercial speech; no publisher, even an "open content" one, is mandated to accept all speech from anyone, and in particular the protections of commercial speech producers are far more easily legally restricted.
Further, the reason it's been banned is precisely because such speech is generally *not* in line with the foundation's stated mission, which is to provide a verifiably neutral free-content encyclopaedia. Arguably we would be more at risk from that interpretation of the tax law if we *allowed* such contributions.
Guy (JzG)