Note: This post is 100% free of crypto and conspiracy theories. My response to Tim:
I think you're reading too much into motives, Tim. I don't think that most in congress are capable of thinking that elaborately, and besides, if someone is convicted of violating the CDA for saying "fuck" online, that is the type of felony that one can get a judge's waiver for...
Jim Bell's response to mine:
I am NOT relieved at hearing this. If one must have a "judge's waiver," then that means he probably can "request" whatever other conditions he chooses to put on his waiver. The government still has a motivation to make
Yes and no. Depends on the judge. Some are hard-assed about granting waivers, others aren't. Part of the problerm is that judges have too much discretion. Another is in the constitution, w/regards to right to vote (it can be denied to felons... I know a couple of people convicted of DWIs that can no longer vote... they just don't care enough to go to a judge and get a waiver.) Not that you would want to put faith in getting a waiver. I'm just critical of Tim's assertion/speculation that gun-control is related to voting for the CDA. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl@unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.