In message <9302272006.AA16075@SOS> you write:

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 00:58:46 GMT From: Tony Kidson <tony@morgan.demon.co.uk>

Yes, we can justify protecting those who threaten these acts. This is a *far* cry fpom protecting those who *commit* those acts.

Ah, I see you are an absolute free-speach advocate. The problem is that the line between speech and acts can be fuzzy at times, especially in the world of cyperspace model.

What you say is true, but I still think that you need to have a substantive act, before you can apply *legal* sanctions. The way to prevent threats, is, as people have said in other posts, to prevent the reception of anonymous mail by those who do not want to receive it. I freely admit that I *am* a free speech advocate. I do not believe that you improve the condition of the world by preventing the speaking of undesirable words; Words should be countered by other words. Many people plan to put the world to rights over a beer in a bar. This may or may not include violent revolution. Are we to decree that this constitutes a violent criminal conspiracy? Speech does not harm anybody. People acting on other's speech is what does the harm. *Free* speech is indeed useful. It's when widely disseminated speech is in the hands of the few that its power can be wielded against the citizen and then it is unhealthy. Tony +-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+ | Tony Kidson | PGP 2.1 Key by request | Voice +44 81 466 5127 | | Morgan Towers, | | E-Mail | | Morgan Road, | This Space | tony@morgan.demon.co.uk | | Bromley, | to Rent | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk | | England BR1 3QE |Honda ST1100 ==*== DoD# 0801 | 100024.301@compuserve.com| +-----------------+-------------------------------+----------------------------+