About lawyers and spoliation

[Aimee Farr]

You may be right, James....I fear.

This just in from the criminal spoliation sector (realize the important
distinctions - here, the government is destroying evidence...)

United States v. Wright, No 00-5010 (6th Cir. August 03, 2001)
http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01a0255p.06


~Aimee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jamesd at echeque.com [mailto:jamesd at echeque.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 11:31 AM
> To: cypherpunks at lne.com; Aimee Farr
> Subject: RE: About lawyers and spoliation
>
>
>     --
> 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