Re: more ideas on anonymity

In message <9302272006.AA16075@SOS> you write:
>    Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 00:58:46 GMT
>    From: Tony Kidson <tony@morgan.demon.co.uk>
>
>    Yes, we can justify protecting those who threaten these acts.
>    This is a *far* cry fpom protecting those who *commit* those
>    acts.
>
> Ah, I see you are an absolute free-speach advocate.  The problem is that
> the line between speech and acts can be fuzzy at times, especially in
> the world of cyperspace model.

What you say is true, but I still think that you need to have a 
substantive act,  before you can apply *legal* sanctions.  The 
way to prevent threats, is, as people have said in other posts, 
to prevent the reception of anonymous mail by those who do not 
want to receive it.  

I freely admit that I *am* a free speech advocate.  I do not 
believe that you improve the condition of the world by preventing 
the speaking of undesirable words; Words should be countered by 
other words.  Many people plan to put the world to rights over a 
beer in a bar.  This may or may not include violent revolution. 
Are we to decree that this constitutes a violent criminal 
conspiracy?  

Speech does not harm anybody.  People acting on other's speech is 
what does the harm.  *Free* speech is indeed useful. It's when 
widely disseminated speech is in the hands of the few that its 
power can be wielded against the citizen and then it is 
unhealthy.

Tony
+-----------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
| Tony Kidson     |    PGP 2.1 Key by request     | Voice +44 81 466 5127    |
| Morgan Towers,  |                               | E-Mail                   |
| Morgan Road,    |         This Space            | tony@morgan.demon.co.uk  |
| Bromley,        |          to Rent              | tny@cix.compulink.co.uk  |
| England BR1 3QE |Honda ST1100  ==*==  DoD# 0801 | 100024.301@compuserve.com|
+-----------------+-------------------------------+----------------------------+

Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 23:59:30 GMT
   From: Tony Kidson <tony@morgan.demon.co.uk>

   > Ah, I see you are an absolute free-speach advocate.  The problem is that
   > the line between speech and acts can be fuzzy at times, especially in
   > the world of cyperspace model.

   What you say is true, but I still think that you need to have a 
   substantive act,  before you can apply *legal* sanctions.  The 
   way to prevent threats, is, as people have said in other posts, 
   to prevent the reception of anonymous mail by those who do not 
   want to receive it.  

   Speech does not harm anybody.  People acting on other's speech is 
   what does the harm.  *Free* speech is indeed useful. It's when 
   widely disseminated speech is in the hands of the few that its 
   power can be wielded against the citizen and then it is 
   unhealthy.

I see.  So you don't believe in libel or slander laws.

And NBC was perfectly justified in faking an explosion in a GM truck to
show it was unsafe, and broadcast it on prime-time TV.  And it didn't do
anybody any harm at all.  Uh huh.

Try again.....

						- Ted