Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:17:55 -0500 (EST) From: Dave Harvey <warrior@infinet.com> Subject: Re: Laws, Feds, & the Internet To: "Richard F. Dutcher" <rfdutcher@igc.apc.org> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Richard F. Dutcher wrote:
The following was in today's San Francisco Chronicle. BTW, quoting the entire article as I have done is probably a violation of "fair use" - but de minimis ...
All under *current* law, folks.
[hmmm -- encryption doesn't do much for exhibitionists and braggarts, does it? ;-]
==============================
[Article Deleted for the sake of Brevity]
And David Harvey wrote:
Now mind you, this kind of writing is demented, however, what ever happened to fiction, free speech and such. At this rate, Steven Spielberg should be in jail as well. I thought you had to prove intent, the saying something or writing it is not bad as long as you didn't have the intent or present capability to carry out such. BTW, I like all of Steven Spielberg's writings and movies, and now HB830 from Oregon rears its head and fangs. Did this guy intend to threaten or was it fiction? How would they even know?
Next thing you know they will limit all free speech.
They *do* have to prove intent -- as to how, that's what juries are for. BTW, he used her real name in the post, with no disclaimers about fiction. From what I have heard, if he had said the same thing in her presence, he could have been arrested for assault. So is saying something that would be actionable in a public space also actionable in a public cyberspace? I dunno, and neither does anyone else. But it's a well-established principle that a threat is a shout of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The "Law" is very conservative. Not like Newt the Grinch, but like the Catholic Church -- make the least change necessary to accomodate the pressures. If you've got laws to cover telephones and cybercomm looks like telephones, get out the shoehorn. "Free" speech has always been a balancing act. The founders certainly didn't intend to provide "free" speech for blacks and women. Our current case law structure is, in large part, the results of the ACLU's 80-year struggle to prevent a repetition of the wholesale imprisonment of dissidents during WWI. Previously, people were *commonly* tossed in local hoosegows [sp?] at the whim of the local authorities for speaking out on anything [Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, temperance, free love, abolition, suffrage, pacifists, Romanists, Masons, anti-masons, anarchists, populists, free silver, etc. ad nauseum]. "They" have never liked "free" speech ... :-( Wei Dai has the right idea -- be a specialist, support other specialists. [But keep those cards and letters coming ... ;-] =================================== Rich Dutcher, San Francisco Greens P.O. Box 77005, San Francisco, California 94107 USA "That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves." Kim Stanley Robinson, "Green Mars" Greens, of course, only enslave plants - so weed-whackers work better than cops ... ====================================