About lawyers and spoliation

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On 4 Aug 2001, at 1:03, Aimee Farr wrote:
> I wasn't speaking of "security through obscurity," I was speaking of
> "security through First Amendment law suit." Nobody could argue "objective
> chill" in here, that's a legal concept....but clearly, you aren't
> interested.

With the DCMA and "campaign finance reform" the first amendment has gone the way of the second.  Non political speech is not protected because it is non political.  Political speech is not protected because it might pressure politicians.

We have no precedents that routine destruction of precedents counts as spoilage, but we have ample precedent that any speech can be silenced.

In the nature of things, it is far easier to enforce a law against free spech that a law against "spoilage" undertaken long before any charges, thus as we move towards totalitarianism, free speech will go first, is going right now, and broad interpretations of "spoilage" will come last.  

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     vFwRyVw26bcmnTVAmHWVa4hpohmWpeoEFQGcSvra
     4KXMRn8toy5+YK/de6MG3wrAYnSnWzP5hSNtQYTzS