Underestimating long-term consequences of cryptoanarchy

[Declan McCullagh]

On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 05:55:24PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> My main point was not to criminally prosecute those who pass laws 
> _later_ found to be unconstitutional, when tested for the first time, 
> but to prosecute those who keep passing the same unconstitutional laws. 
> They know the laws "won't pass constitutional muster," as the lingo 
> goes, but they get enough other career criminals to sign on anyway.

Yes. Leahy would fall into that category, actually. Congress enacted
the "morphed" child porn ban in I recall 1996, and the Supreme Ct struck
it down 7-2 as unconstitutional around a year ago. Within days Leahy,
Hatch, and the other usual suspects reintroduced nearly-identical 
legislation:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52285,00.html
>The original law, overturned on First Amendment grounds, outlawed a
>certain type of image that "appears to be" of a minor. The new COPPA
>bill refers to any computer-generated image that is "virtually
>indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit
>conduct."

We've seen the same silliness on campaign finance, on dial-a-porn
restrictions (something like three rounds before the Supremes), and 
on CDA->COPA.

-Declan