From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 03:01:53 -0800 Squabbling over what "crimes" or "antisocial acts" should disqualify one from being able to use anonymity is ***WAY*** missing the point. It is the people who have crossed one of those lines who need the protection the most! It is perhaps tempting to say that people committing antisocial acts and crimes should be protected, if the image that comes to your mind is the courageeous freedom fighter. On the other hand, it behooves us all to remember that "protecting criminals" also includes protecting the people who threaten rape, murder or other violence. It may be the case that in order to protect the "freedom fighter", we must also strike down the laws that protect us from the "axe murderer". But we must make this choice consciously. It is silly and stupid of us to be obsessed with protecting ourselves from the axe murderer, that we we are also surpressing basic freedomes. At the same time, however, we must not wax over-romantic thinking about the plight of the "freedom fighter", of the "angry young man", without remembering that there are also some really nasty people out there. While anonymity has its features, we would do well to acknowledge that it also has its dark side. That people may hide behind a remailer, and send hateful, petting, harrassing things that they might otherwise not say if they actually had to take personal responsibility for their actions. Keep in mind that part of the mystique of the "freedom fighter", who takes on the government in his/her selfless task of Democracy and the American Way, is his courage and his willingness to take personal risk and personal injury in his Quest For the Right. Would we have the same respect for a coward who evades his personal responsibility by sending petty, hateful mail through a remailer; who breaks laws that he/she thinks are unjust, but is unwilling to face the consequences of breaking said laws? Remember, a big part of civil disobedience is the willingness to be arrested. - Ted