[Cboldt]

Neat case. Did you read it? It holds against criminialising the pamphleting of issues by anonymous publishers. In this case, there was NO suggestion that the contents of the pamphlet were false, misleading, or libelous.

[Turin_Turambar]

Ohio case is not relevant. But as pointed out by my earlier citation to V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 32.21, the actual maker of the documents if guilty if he is indeed in Texas, and would be guilty in most states, because the standard is HARM, not just prejudice to a right. Whoever cooked them up needs to go to the pokey.

[claudiustg]

---n this case, there was NO suggestion that the contents of the pamphlet were false, misleading, or libelous.---

Yeah, wrong case I think. :^(

I'm looking.