You may be right, James....I fear. This just in from the criminal spoliation sector (realize the important distinctions - here, the government is destroying evidence...) United States v. Wright, No 00-5010 (6th Cir. August 03, 2001) http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0255p.06 ~Aimee
-----Original Message----- From: jamesd@echeque.com [mailto:jamesd@echeque.com] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:31 AM To: cypherpunks@lne.com; Aimee Farr Subject: RE: About lawyers and spoliation
-- On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective chill" in here, that's a legal concept....but clearly, you aren't interested.
With the DCMA and "campaign finance reform" the first amendment has gone the way of the second. Non political speech is not protected because it is non political. Political speech is not protected because it might pressure politicians.
We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech can be silenced.
In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law against free spech that a law against "spoilage" undertaken long before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free speech will go first, is going right now, and broad interpretations of "spoilage" will come last.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra 4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS