IP: Wanna make biological weapons and take out cities? $10. (fwd)

[Declan McCullagh]

Nobody is saying that free expression includes inciting a riot or 
soliciting murder. But it does generally include the right to write a book 
(and read it) without being targeted by the government. What you wrote that 
raised eyebrows was this:

>I sure hope that the government is investigating and following each and every
>person who buys a copy of this book... I wonder if there's a way to force
>Tobiason to foot the bill for that security?

There are plenty of books I can think of -- almost all of the Loompanics 
catalog -- that would fret some government official. David Burnham's books 
on the IRS and DOJ abuses of power are another. But I hardly think it's 
consistent with the First Amendment to investigate the people who buy them, 
or make the authors pay "protection money" for the privilege of publishing.

Then you wrote in the message below:
>How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let fall
>into the hands of psychotics?  We already don't sell guns to convicted 
>felons...
>  gee, that sounds to me like "prior restraint"... or do you think THAT's 
> wrong,
>too? There are some things that are so terrible that you simply can't wait to
>prosecute or criminalize until AFTER the fact of their happening.

My translation of that is "we must require background checks on people who 
buy books, newspapers, or magazines" that some FBI officials dislike. (I 
look forward to seeing how you'll extend this to the Internet. AdultCheck, 
anyone? How about posts on the cypherpunks list or other fora that include 
more scientific or technical information than you feel comfortable with?) 
My translation of your last sentence is "we must criminalize the 
publication of certain technical or scientific information just because 
some bad people may get their hands on it." Comparing background checks for 
gun purchasers (in an approving way) to background checks to books is just 
nutty.

Now do you see why your post is so at odds with the principles of a free 
society? If not, I'm not sure you're educable on this issue.

-Declan


At 02:33 AM 11/22/2001 -0600, gep2 at terabites.com wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> wrote:
> >Clearly "gep2" does not understand principles of free expression
> >and limited government. A shame.
>
>I understand free expression and limited government just fine.
>
>Free expression does not include shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, 
>and it
>also doesn't include inciting a riot or soliciting murder.
>
>Unfortunately, there are plenty of lunatics and crazies in our society, 
>and you
>simply can't let those types of people have their finger on the nuclear 
>button
>(it's bad enough when our _President_ [especially THIS one] can do that).
>
>Some suicidal maniac or manic depressive (or even just mean drunk) could 
>easily
>just get pissed off and decide to take 100,000 or a million or something 
>other
>people out with him... we've had situations like that (snipers from the 
>tower at
>UT Austin, dispondent students in high schools, Timother McVeigh, and so
>forth... fortunately limited by their technical capability to kill on a 
>MASSIVE
>scale.)
>
>It's bad enough when someone like Osama bin Laden kills several thousands of
>people with hijacked airliners.  (At least there, there IS a response
>possible... for better or for worse... as we've seen).
>
>It's quite another matter when some maniac commits suicide and takes half a
>million or a million other people out with him.  (And how do you respond 
>THEN?
>Presuming here that you're talking about some right-wing wacko (American
>citizen!) who's already now dead?  Does the government just say, "Gee, isn't
>that just awful!"?  Or you do something to try to prevent it from happening
>BEFORE it does?)
>
>And if it DID happen... do you sit back and let some copycat then do it 
>again?
>And another do it AGAIN?  How many times do you just sit back and wring your
>hands in despair?  How many sets of these "terrorism cookbooks" do you let 
>fall
>into the hands of psychotics?  We already don't sell guns to convicted 
>felons...
>  gee, that sounds to me like "prior restraint"... or do you think THAT's 
> wrong,
>too?
>
>There are some things that are so terrible that you simply can't wait to
>prosecute or criminalize until AFTER the fact of their happening.
>
>Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
>Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
>12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
>12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.