On Feb 09, 1996 06:39:28, 'Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>' wrote:
"Your Honor, I plead necessity. The reason I violated this law was so
that
I would have plenty of practice in case I ever find myself in a totalitarian state. Since the laws of the US and International Law permit (and in some
cases require) me to violate the laws of a totalitarian state, I need to practice law violation under the less stressful circumstances of the current US. Without practice, I won't be able to violate totalitarian laws smoothly and thus might have to obey them. This could put me in jeopardy under International Law. Necessity defense."
Perry: I plead necessity. "The reason I posted my latest tract on why all men are rapists to the cypherpunk list was so that I would have plenty of practice in case I ever find myself in a society trying to argue against fundamental rights. I need to practice arguing against these things under less stressful circumstances of the current US. Without practice, I won't be able to argue for civil liberties smoothly and thus might have to obey bad laws in a society without those liberties. This could put me in jeopardy under those laws. Necessity defense." ==Andr*a Dw*rk*n Other than that, nothing is wrong with it, Duncan. Within limits you can argue in court whatever the judge lets you argue. I am not sure that the judge would even listen. I also suspect that if you relied on this defense you would rapidly be convicted. But that,of course, is something you have the freedom to do. --tallpaul