On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Attila T. Hun wrote:
if the public defender's brief is filed under seal, it generally discusses what the defendent has passed the government --in other words: snitching on others in affairs related to the defendent or even the names of people who the defendent feels might be part of the overall problem to the government --sounds like most any active cypherpunk to me as there are not too many happy with the government's actions on amendments 1,2,4,5,6,8,10,14 for a starter. by the time F{reeh,uck} gets through, there will be no bill of rights --Orwell was a piker.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #From: "Clayton E. Cramer" <clayton_cramer@dlcc.com> #Subject: the American Society of Criminology conference in San Diego #Date: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 10:35:37 -0800 Well, it was an interesting experience. ... Professor Joyce Malcolm of Bentley College in Massachusetts was the chair of the panel on which I sat. She showed me something quite disturbing from another presentation that she had attended. The paper attempted to determine if the Montana Militia could be considered a "hate group" or not. Among the methods by which they determined this was examination of the phrases and concerned in Montana Militia literature. Among the phrases or subjects that would classify a group as a "hate group" were: 1. Discussion of the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. 2. Discussion of military oppression, in the U.S. or elsewhere. 3. Discussion of the Framers of our government. She showed me a copy of the criteria used by the criminologists in question, and these were among the criteria. I guess the ACLU and Amnesty Internationl are hate groups also. Very disturbing. -- -