On Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:29:56 -0400 (EDT), Declan McCullagh wrote:

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 6-Jun-96 Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS by jim bell@pacifier.com

...

Not quite yet, anyway. I'm very disappointed to have waited over a year for some slick lawyer to show me how I'd be violating some law or another to do so ... A few observations:

1. Not many readers of cypherpunks are lawyers

I've noticed quite a few, actually. I don't know how many are regular readers but there seems to be enough to maintain a steady undercurrent of legal thinking on the issues associated with digital commerce, some anonymity and First Amendment issues, a sprinkling of criminal law topics, and of course, banking, intellectual property, SEC, antitrust, general contract, and related commercial law.

2. Of the laywers who do read cypherpunks, many may not choose to spend their time researching what laws AP may violate. Or they're not "slick" lawyers; take your pick.

Or they automatically delete any posts that come from or relate to the puerile bullshit Bell is infamous for, and choose not to get dragged into this type of time- and bandwidth- wasting garbage. Of which this post is just another, of course, but i get so damn sick and tired of the constant imposition of 'AP' and related nonsense on this list. Of late, the trolls seems to be particularly effective among people who should know better, and an aura of credence or relevance has developed around some of this crap. Can't we just ignore it, and move on? Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away.

3. Congress would have no problems passing a law outlawing AP, if one does not exist already.

-Declan

I would be satisfied if they just outlawed e-mail about it.