[Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]

[LUIS VILDOSOLA]

Your last paragraph is a little too complicated for me Jim,
I'm interested in what you have to say but please break it
down for me.

Jim Choate <ravage at ssz.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
> 
> > Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will
> > be an abstract argument.
> 
> Not at all, code itself can NEVER infringe anothers right, UNLESS it's
> executed (acted upon).
> 
> Speech in and of itself is powerful because of its two characteristics,
> 
> -	It's harmless and does nothing in and of itself.
> 
> -	It motivates peoples imagination to act.
> 
> It is the second point that ALL regulation of speech, expression, press,
> distribution, etc. exists for.
> 
> Fundamentaly all government regulation of speech is nothing more than a
> covert attempt to manage your consequent behaviour. It is not the speech
> but what others may do with it. It is clear the person emitting the speech
> has no control over the person receiving the speech. But we can't control
> the second party until it's too late. So we try to control the first
> party. Further, if we accept the premise that the first party is
> responsible for the acts of the second party, then what of the unmentioned 
> parties acting on the first party? And if we claim the first party is
> acting of their own free will then what character of the second party is
> our litmus test? What aspect of the relationship between the first and
second 
> parties is missing in the relationship between the first and unnamed
> parties that relieves the unnamed parties of responsibility for the acts
> of the first party? And isn't the regulation of PREVIOUS speech by such a
> unnamed party also proof that the first party isn't acting of their own
> free will? Isn't the fact that this unnamed party removed the potential
> good from banned speech from the situation and thus itself participated in
> the affront? And because they did so with forethought doesnt' this
> compound their part?
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________________
> 
>            Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
>            smaller group must first understand it.
> 
>                                            "Stranger Suns"
>                                            George Zebrowski
> 
>        The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
>        Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
>        www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
>                            -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1