Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?

So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a
passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list:

	"//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government
	of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the
	language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of
	expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative
	proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such
	overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized
	protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354
	U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for
	the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM)

Some civil liberties lawyers, incidentally, have told me that Internet
messages almost by definition are probably not "direct and imminent
incitement."

Some excerpts from Yates v. United States:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page=2
9
        The essential distinction [354 U.S. 298, 325] is that those to whom
	the advocacy is addressed must be urged to do something, now or
	in the future, rather than merely to believe in something. [...]

        Instances of speech that could be considered to amount to "advocacy
	of action" are so few and far between as to be almost completely
	overshadowed by the hundreds of instances in the record in which
	overthrow, if mentioned at all, occurs in the course of doctrinal
	disputation so remote from action as to be almost wholly lacking
	in probative value. Vague references to "revolutionary" or
	"militant" action of an unspecified character, which are found
	in the evidence, might in addition be given too great weight by
	the jury in the absence of more precise instructions.
	Particularly in light of this record, we must regard the trial
	court's charge in this respect as furnishing wholly inadequate
	guidance to the jury on this central point in the case. We cannot
	allow a conviction to stand on such "an equivocal direction to
	the jury on a basic issue."

-Declan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:45 AM 11/28/97 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>So I've been reading "Freedom and the Court" by Henry Abraham, and a
>passage in it made me think of Tim May and the cypherpunks list:

There is no crime called "advocating revolution" or even 
"revolution."  The crime that is being discussed in such cases is 
"sedition."

Any US Attorney will tell you that sedition convictions are hard to 
win because of the difficulty proving that the defendant actually 
tried to do so in a realistic way.  Tough.

The trial of a group of isolationists during WWII and some white 
supremacists a few years ago resulted in acquittals.  

DCF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBNH64G4VO4r4sgSPhAQG9nwQAvdqzZ7jo6b7oKVh4PmB8/4v5bY8rFVYH
UNyesI+JzG9iR6cV6aH4owmw+T/bs4VKgUUsiR5Qe3xI20Q1v5dc9nQyWETfl5dZ
4u66LOjnJhHltotY6mGy63l2keB7wS6tI4Z+YXplgNl7uWVCcJmzxaCrpMP70FAE
Nj0WeH1MjH8=
=4u+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 12:45 AM 11/28/1997 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>	"//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government
>	of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the
>	language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of
>	expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative
>	proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such
>	overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized
>	protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354
>	U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for
>	the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM)
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page=2
Actually, the linewrap munged the "page=298" at the end, leaving a 
reference is Reid vs. Covert, another fascinating case, 
dealing with the limits on US jurisdiction on citizens outside the 48 states,
in particarticular military jurisdiction and territorial jurisdictions
(including pointers to the cases about confiscation of Mormon Church property
during the Defense Of Marriage\\\\\\\\\\\anti-polygamy legislation.)

Yates, a case about the legalization of Communism, is at
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page=298 .
While the primary opinion of the court was as above, the court
unfortunately stopped short of the blazingly absolutist defense of free speech
by Justice Hugo Black (joined by Douglas), in an opinion that partially
concurs and partially dissents, and is therefore only dicta.
	"I believe that the First Amendment forbids Congress to punish people 
	for talking about public affairs, whether or not such discussion
	incites to action, legal or illegal."   ......

It was either this case or cases like it that spurred the
John Birch Society to their calls for impeaching Earl Warren,
even before that pinko compounded his anti-Americanism by
insisting that cops read people their rights and get search warrants.

As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never
heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government.
He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it
(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed),
and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of 
black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself
first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges
or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying.  

Not guilty.


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

At 11:33 PM -0700 11/29/97, Bill Stewart wrote:

>As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never
>heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government.
>He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it
>(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed),
>and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of
>black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself
>first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges
>or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying.
>
>Not guilty.

An almost complete summary of my stance.

But Bill left out the third leg of my tripod, that I expect to wake up some
morning and learn that some major city, perhaps Washington, D.C. has been
nuked or bugged.

And, as I am fond of saying, I doubt I'll shed any tears.

(Which got first twisted into "Tim wants to see D.C. nuked) (possibly
true), and then further mutated into "Tim is involved in a conspiracy to
help terrorists destroy major cities" (possibly true)).

Fortunately for me, none of these legs of the tripod are (yet) illegal,
though I gather from what I saw of several of Hettinga's recent foamings
that he thinks they should be.

--Tim May


The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."