Bomb Law Reporter - special edition

[Reese]

At 08:48 PM 8/16/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
 >[BLR has recently been the subject of media attacks and poison pen
 >letters.]

Let me hear you say it.  Does a part of you hurt?

 >[Some cpunk] wrote:
 >
 >>You are familiar with the terms "FUD" and "Propaganda" aren't you,
 >>Aimee?  Is there a real case that can be cited properly?
 >
 >Accusing me of trickery on the tribunal? Himf. See US v. EATON,
 >No 00-1276 (10th Cir. August 14, 2001).

Skimmed it.  So the account was more real than not?  You are obviously
willing and able to provide the real citation, so what purpose was
served by changing all the names and obscuring the real cite, if
trickery was not a factor?

 >> How is discussing bomb recipes the same as discussing bomb
 >> deployment with stated intention to deploy?
 >
 >Never said it was. However, talking about bombs and arms trafficking
 >along with crypto is like turning on a "UC bugzapper." You're talking
 >about the courtroom. Agents make the facts.
 >
 >AGENT: "Oh, he's just talking about bomb recipes. If ONLY he would
 >just state his 'intention to deploy' so I could investigate and [...]
 >to see just what the heck he's doing over there."
 >
 >AGENT: "Oh, they are talking about bombs, again. Oh, I would I could
 >just make them stop! Damn this free speech stuff!"
 >
 >Bzzt.
 >
 >I am aware of the long-standing, oft-debated, legal analogy between
 >crypto and bombs related to the First Amendment. (Heck, it's even in
 >court pleadings.) AN ANALOGY. For some reason, I think crypto + bomb
 >talk = bad things, and it's a mischaracterization of this forum.

Talking about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is not the same as
doing it, no matter how "is" is defined, talking about bombs and making
them is no different.  Who was it?  Said "I disagree with what you say
but support your right to say it" or words to that effect?

I take it you have no interest in dealing with this topic seriously,
it's evident you are having too much fun clowning around.

Reese