Re: (Yes, you) CAN-SPAM ACT (now before email becomes completely useless)

"McWebber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> "Arthur L. Rubin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm, suppose I'm a prosecutor and I try to prosecute someone
>> > attempting or comitting fraud via email under my state's fraud
>> > statutes.   Will the Federal 'They Can Spam" act be usable as a
>> > defense since it 'pre-empts' state laws?
>>
>> I haven't read the law, but I HAVE read that it specifically allows
>> states to prosecute under laws which don't mention the means of
>> transmission of the message.  So fraud should be OK.
>>
> 
> I read that and figured CA could just rewrite the law to say something
> like "electronic message transmission" instead of email.

How are television advertisments (bulk, commercial, unsolicited) delivered 
if not electronically?

--