From: IN%"tcmay@got.net" 1-AUG-1996 18:22:25.80

Many of the proposed restrictions seek to further blur this chain of causation, by making someone who provides access to materials which _may_ later be used in a crime, or which may "inspire" someone to crime, a kind of criminal.

[...]

People who actually commit real crimes are the criminals, not those who sold them Hostess Twinkies without first checking their blood sugar level. Not those who let a library patron look at a "dangerous" book. And not those who provided strong cryptographic tools which _might_ be used by terrorists, pedophiles, and money launderers.

Quite. One analogy that should bring things a bit closer to home to liberal types is that of zoning laws and restrictive covanents. The (unfortunately legally accepted) justification, as I understand it, for many zoning laws is that they prevent reductions in property values. Restrictive covanents, such as against blacks or AIDS patients, have the same argument for them, if one accepts the logic of the proposed restrictions. Blacks/whoever moving in causes racists (or people anticipating the actions of racists) not to want to move in or causes them to sell; this reduces local property values. By the logic of the proposed restrictions, that means blacks/whoever should be held responsible for the decrease in property values and barred or fined. Obviously, this whole idea is nonsense... only if you're the last _person_ in a chain of causation are you the person making a decision for which you should be blameable. (By person I refer to that people are the only beings capable of making such a choice. I neither treat cows as having rights/choices nor do I hold a bull criminally responsible for goring someone. Rights mean responsibility; choices mean consequences.) Otherwise, someone else has the chance to make their own decision and avert the negative results.... or not. -Allen