GAK boycott, What are legal implications?

[Robert A. Jacoby]

On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Paul Elliott wrote:

Gee, being legally responsible for lost revenue over a boycott.  Rev. Donald 
Wilmond is going to be very broke!  I don't know anything about the NAACP 
case, but it seems to me that free speech & merely *urging* people to 
boycott would be a perfect defense.


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> Here is a question for all of you cyber legal types out there.
> This question presupposes: 
> 
> The NIST will complete its work on the GAK standard. But no law will be
> passed (yet) regulating the use of encryption in the U. S. (The GAK standard 
> is an attempt to create an environment in which such laws can be passed.) 
> In the U.S., Big Company INC will start marketing a GAKed encryption 
> product domesticly.
> 
> A bunch of cypherpunkish types will immediately try to organize a boycott
> against BIG COMPANY.
> 
> What are the cypherpunks legal risks?
> 
> I seem to remember that back in the 70s, the NAACP lost a big case
> with respect to their boycott in a southern city. As I recall there were people
> in the street begging money for the NAACP because there was a > 10**6 $
> judgement against the NAACP and they needed that much just to appeal.
> 
> 
> - -- 
> Paul Elliott                                  Telephone: 1-713-781-4543
> Paul.Elliott at hrnowl.lonestar.org              Address:   3987 South Gessner #224
>                                               Houston Texas 77063
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
> 
> iQCVAwUBMNnJ8/BUQYbUhJh5AQGbsgP/T0n31SqeuHt+7AbizymcEhu/78DUuym5
> sj+MO3ruA9WcEBQUXfabuf/PgOwlrtUAcC3dISPvXwGbdygc9oHBfxSglLi48g7d
> dvDS4wziRHF7N8sBsYn0ee9YyKhPd9U7Ci0ovOc5frFGSZ2Bt4hU703d7bR+6cB+
> iHHqsPaAa6o=
> =EPoj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 

Robert A. Jacoby	(speaking only for myself--not legal advice)
Assistant Law Librarian for LAN/Reference
George Mason University Law Library
(703) 993-8107
rjacoby1 at osf1.gmu.edu