Tim May wrote:
Trying to "explain" the Cypherpunk ideology and outlook (such as it is), is not likely to be helpful. Not that John's or Declan's or anyone else's job is to help Bell in his defense. Bell chose his path.
In a way, part of the above message is a proof of some of my thoughts. I didn't suggest that the defense attorney try to preach to the court. My suggestion was it would be helpful to a fair trial for him to understand some of the background. Because (from what I read), he seemed to be very much at sea with what he's been given. I could be wrong, but it was merely a private suggestion to someone who seemed very concerned about the case (sorry John, not trying to tar you). To ordinary people, this might even be stating the obvious. That was immediately converted into the idea that it was a suggestion that the defense attorney should rant at the court. Which is very revealing about the "ideology and outlook".
Anyone think this would be useful?:
"Your Honor, I was given a lengthy briefing by members of the list, given copies of their posts and their manifestos. I now understand them. I now understand why Jim Bell is advocating the assassination-by-lottery of judges and prosecutors. Fuck the State, Man!"
Useful? Didn't think so.
It wouldn't be useful to say that to the court. But in fact, if the defense attorney DOES NOT understand the background, it seemed it might help for him to know it. You say: "... Bell does not represent my views--and vice versa." While it's an overstatement to say that Bell REPRESENTS your views, I'd say it's extremely useful to understand those views of yours. The number of times you, personally, have talked about who "needs killing", is amazing. In fact, "needs killing" is virtually a running joke. Thus my take on some of this, is that there's an aspect of "It's all fun and games, until someone's eye gets put out" (or someone takes it too far, and gets arrested). Now, I know the automatic flame in response to this. Does that mean you, or anyone else, are responsible for what Jim Bell did? Not at all. However, if someone is the defense attorney, it sure can be useful to understand some of Bell's bombastic statements in the context of the violent rhetoric whichs acts like an "Amen" sometimes. That's "understand", not "consider responsible for", got it? As to "Assassination Politics", many people get way too focused on the technical details in relation to the case. If Bell's overall actions are examined, it look a lot like he's soliciting murder of Federal agents. Maybe his implementation wouldn't be anonymous, and wouldn't pay off. Hypothetically, trying to soliciting murder anonymously and failing, and not paying, aren't mitigating to the crime involved. I suppose, given the tenor of the times, I should state that I've never met Jim Bell, never had any contact with him (personal or e-mail), and don't want any. Nor, for what it's worth, am I an agent of the Federal government, nor connected with the prosecution in any way, shape or form, nor have any interest there. I did feel some sympathy for the defense attorney Robert Leen when reading some messages. Oh, and I go way back with Declan McCullagh, I can't deny that. __ Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf@mit.edu http://sethf.com