On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 09:04:39AM -0800, Tim May wrote:
The notion that Bell's defense will be "helped" if only the Court or its various prosecuting and defending attorneys are given an education in The Cypherpunk Way is just plain ludicrous.
Sounds reasonable to me. Some things just can't be explained succinctly, and even if they are understood may be perceived to be objectionable.
Also, I don't recall Bell being charged on anything relating to his AP ideas, even if his writings helped make a prosecution more likely. The "interstate stalking" stuff doesn't seem to have _any_ contact with the Cypherpunks list. So why would educating the Court and its officers in Cypherpunks issues help?
True, except for one point, and that was (what I recall) the conversation on cpunx over the CIA possible front in Bell's area. But that could have happened on many lists, and the "cypherpunk philosophy" -- to the extent there is a philosophy -- should not be particularly relevant here, it seems to me.
I probably should have said nothing to this journalist. If Declan is forced to testify, beyond a very basic acknowledgement that he was the author of the articles in question, I sure plan to refuse to ever speak to any journalist again about anything which someone might twist in front of a jury. "Hey, Declan, nice weather we're having, eh?" I'll continue to be Declan's friend, presumably, but I just won't talk to him about anything that may get extracted from him in this or in any future star chamber prosecutions.
The sad thing is, I agree with Tim. If I were in his position, I would likely feel the same way. -Declan