more ideas on anonymity
tytso at Athena.MIT.EDU
Sun Feb 28 13:57:19 PST 1993
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 23:59:30 GMT
From: Tony Kidson <tony at morgan.demon.co.uk>
> 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.
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
I see. So you don't believe in libel or slander laws.
And NBC was perfectly justified in faking an explosion in a GM truck to
show it was unsafe, and broadcast it on prime-time TV. And it didn't do
anybody any harm at all. Uh huh.
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy