Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Dan Geer wrote:

> Export controls are meaningless without domestic use restrictions and
> domestic use restrictions will never pass the test of the First
> Amendment.  <snip>

Just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean that learned 
judicial appointees will find it unconstitutional. When domestic GAK is 
passed, it will be structured to fit into the judicial philosophy of the day.
This is under the same philosophy that says television shows are not 
speech, but rather a commercial enterprise. If the courts were first 
amendments absolutists, like the persons on these two lists, there would 
be no problem seeing porn on primetime TV. There would also be no V-chip law.

When they manage to get the political conscensus, they will pass it. 

Incidentally, I remind you of the results of the moot court that was held 
at one of the CFP conferences, where a GAK case was tried in front of 
real federal judges by real lawyers. Our side lost.

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 f_estema@alcor.concordia.ca wrote:
[stuff]
> 
> Incidentally, I remind you of the results of the moot court that was held 
> at one of the CFP conferences, where a GAK case was tried in front of 
> real federal judges by real lawyers. Our side lost.
> 

Um.  Actually the real judges didn't render an opinion (in public) since
they might have to rule for real someday and would probably be conflicted
out if they had ruled on the merits in a mock trial.  The opinions were by
a shadow panel of law professors, and they disagreed, 2-1. 
==
The above may have been dictated via Dragon Dictate 2.51 voice
recognition. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions. 

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law     | froomkin@law.miami.edu
P.O. Box 248087            | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.