Re: Laws, Feds, & the Internet

> Date:          Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:17:55 -0500 (EST)
> From:          Dave Harvey <warrior@infinet.com>
> Subject:       Re: Laws, Feds, & the Internet
> To:            "Richard F. Dutcher" <rfdutcher@igc.apc.org>
> Cc:            cypherpunks@toad.com

> On Fri, 10 Feb 1995, Richard F. Dutcher wrote:
> 
> > 
> > The following was in today's San Francisco Chronicle.  BTW, quoting 
> > the entire article as I have done is probably a violation of "fair 
> > use" - but de minimis ...
> > 
> > All under *current* law, folks.
> > 
> > [hmmm -- encryption doesn't do much for exhibitionists and 
> > braggarts, does it?  ;-]
> > 
> > ==============================
> [Article Deleted for the sake of Brevity]
> 

And David Harvey wrote:

> Now mind you, this kind of writing is demented, however, what ever
> happened to fiction, free speech and such.  At this rate, Steven Spielberg
> should be in jail as well.  I thought you had to prove intent, the saying
> something or writing it is not bad as long as you didn't have the intent
> or present capability to carry out such.  BTW, I like all of Steven
> Spielberg's writings and movies, and now HB830 from Oregon rears its head
> and fangs.  Did this guy intend to threaten or was it fiction?  How would
> they even know? 
> 
> Next thing you know they will limit all free speech.
> 

They *do* have to prove intent -- as to how, that's what juries are 
for.  BTW, he used her real name in the post, with no disclaimers 
about fiction.  From what I have heard, if he had said the same thing 
in her presence, he could have been arrested for assault.

So is saying something that would be actionable in a public space
also actionable in a public cyberspace?  I dunno, and neither does
anyone else.  But it's a well-established principle that a threat is 
a shout of "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The "Law" is very conservative.  Not like Newt the Grinch, but like 
the Catholic Church -- make the least change necessary to accomodate 
the pressures.  If you've got laws to cover telephones and cybercomm 
looks like telephones, get out the shoehorn.

"Free" speech has always been a balancing act.  The founders
certainly didn't intend to provide "free" speech for blacks and
women.  Our current case law structure is, in large part, the results
of the ACLU's 80-year struggle to prevent a repetition of the
wholesale imprisonment of dissidents during WWI.  Previously, people
were *commonly* tossed in local hoosegows [sp?] at the whim of the
local authorities for speaking out on anything [Quakers, Methodists,
Baptists, temperance, free love, abolition, suffrage, pacifists, 
Romanists, Masons, anti-masons, anarchists, populists, free silver, 
etc. ad nauseum].

"They" have never liked "free" speech ... :-(

Wei Dai has the right idea -- be a specialist, support other 
specialists.  [But keep those cards and letters coming ... ;-]



===================================
Rich Dutcher, San Francisco Greens
P.O. Box 77005, San Francisco, California 94107 USA

"That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves."
                          Kim Stanley Robinson, "Green Mars"

Greens, of course, only enslave plants - so weed-whackers work better than cops ...
====================================

Rich Dutcher writes:
> They *do* have to prove intent -- as to how, that's what juries are 
> for.  BTW, he used her real name in the post, with no disclaimers 
> about fiction.  From what I have heard, if he had said the same thing 
> in her presence, he could have been arrested for assault.

Based on the NY Times article I've read, you're omitting some important
extenuating circumstances here. For one thing, it was apparently posted to
alt.sex.stories, which seems to obviate the use of "fictional" disclaimers.
Furthermore, he did _not_ identify her as a UMich student.

I don't see the relevance of "if he had said the same thing in her presence".
He *didn't* !  There's an enormous difference between making a comment about
a person to third parties, and making the comment to that person.

According to the NY Times story, the woman mentioned in the story only heard
about it because reporters asked her about it !  I find a great deal of irony
in the report that the controversy started because an alt.sex.stories reader
in _Moscow_ tipped off the UMich authorities.

It appears that the Russians are allowed to read erotic fiction, while the
Americans are forbidden to read it, and get tossed in jail for writing it.
We've come a long way, baby. Yeah.

 -L. Futplex McCarthy; PGP key by finger or server   "The objective is for us 
  to get those conversations whether they're by an alligator clip or ones and 
  zeroes. Wherever they are, whatever they are, I need them." -FBI Dir. Freeh