Participants and spectators in Jim Bell's trial next week in Seattle might be interested in this case, released by the Ninth Circuit today, concerning the use of a web page to publish addresses of third parties, and whether or not such publication is protected by the First Amendment where it's foreseeable that unknown persons could make use of the addresses to cause injury or embarassment - <http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9935320.html> As the Ninth Circuit writes - Political speech may not be punished just because it makes it more likely that someone will be harmed at some unknown time in the future by an unrelated third party. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects speech that encourages others to commit violence, unless the speech is capable of "producing imminent lawless action. " Id. at 447. It doesn't matter if the speech makes future violence more likely; advocating "illegal action at some indefinite future time" is protected. Hess v. Indiana , 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973) (per curiam). If the First Amendment protects speech advocat- ing violence, then it must also protect speech that does not advocate violence but still makes it more likely. The Ninth Circuit held that, where the web page publisher(s) themselves did not communicate a threat to harm the persons mentioned on the web page, the publication of the addresses was protected by the First Amendment. Free, encrypted, secure Web-based email at www.hushmail.com