speech + action
Tim, It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the accused even if the speech is legal and the action appears to be ineffectual or undirected. Look at how AP was used. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 seems to link speech directly with the action of paramilitary training, even if there is no specific target. The speech portion of the offense enables a heavy response to the otherwise unpunishable action. Whether or not anyone has been convicted under this statute there it sits, ready to pounce. Admittedly these are weak cites but I do think the ( legal_but_unpopular_speech + unpunishable_action = crime ) idea is embodied in laws. I think eventually it'll somehow get extended to address the cyberterrordangerouslyeducatedchaosprogrammerdeaththreat that faces each and every freedom-loving, net-browsing Amurrican today! Maybe the pro bono brigade of the unorganized, non-organizational, casually associational, non-paramilitary, non-coding, non-militia, profusely verbal cypherpunks flying circus will chime in with some fun stuff. Mike http://www.sfgate.com/okc/winokur/0423.html http://www.vpc.org/studies/awapara.htm In 1986, the ADL formulated model state legislation that would ban paramilitary training "aimed at provoking civil disorder."[104] In drafting the model bill, the ADL specifically stated that the statute must not violate First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Another objective was to draft the statute narrowly so that it would not prohibit legitimate lawful activities such as target shooting and other sporting events. This was important, the ADL stated, for "minimizing opposition to the bill by powerful special interest groups." [105] Laws based on the statute have passed in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia.[106] http://www.channel4000.com/news/dimension/dimension-960425-133523.html http://www.hatemonitor.org/Research_articles/levin10.html - please read the last paragraph - keeping records of public speech becomes part of the procsecutor's toolbox - the speech seems to be a necessary component of the prosecution. "The current federal paramilitary training statute, 18 U.S.C. 23 1, punishes only those who instruct others in fomenting violent civil disorder. Clearly, the statute should punish trainees as well. Similar statutes have been enacted in at least 24 states. " http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/11460.html - Read this one and think about how speech could be used to facilitate indictment. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq5.htm look at the end.
Re: speech + action
On Thursday, August 30, 2001, at 10:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tim, > > It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action > is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the > accused even if the speech is legal and the action appears to be > ineffectual or undirected. Look at how AP was used. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 seems > to link speech directly with the action of paramilitary training, even > if there is no specific target. The speech portion of the offense > enables a heavy response to the otherwise unpunishable action. Whether > or not anyone has been convicted under this statute there it sits, ready > to pounce. Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. This is why I listed these as exceptions.) Bell's AP was not one of the charges in his case. > > Admittedly these are weak cites but I do think the ( > legal_but_unpopular_speech + unpunishable_action = crime ) idea is > embodied in laws. I think eventually it'll somehow get extended to > address the cyberterrordangerouslyeducatedchaosprogrammerdeaththreat > that faces each and every freedom-loving, net-browsing Amurrican today! > > Maybe the pro bono brigade of the unorganized, non-organizational, > casually associational, non-paramilitary, non-coding, non-militia, > profusely verbal cypherpunks flying circus will chime in with some fun > stuff. No point in going round and round. I don't think even the U.S.G. has this power that you think it does, and I cite the non-prosecution of many right-wing groups as evidence. When busts have occurred, other alleged crimes were involved, like trespassing, violations of gun laws, etc. > http://www.sfgate.com/okc/winokur/0423.html > > http://www.vpc.org/studies/awapara.htm > > In 1986, the ADL formulated model state legislation that would ban > paramilitary training "aimed at provoking civil disorder."[104] In > drafting the model bill, the ADL specifically stated that the statute > must not violate First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Well, the ADL is made up mostly of Jews, and Jews have extraordinarily anti-liberty views. If the Jews ran our country...wait a minute, they do. Never mind. (P.S. Just kidding. The ADL and B'nai Brith and Jews for the Confiscation of Firearms have not succeeded in getting thoughtcrimes banned the way they had hoped. And Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Rights are actively campaigning on the other side.) --Tim May
Re: speech + action
Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >Which is why I asked for you some actual cases. I pointed out that--so >far as I have heard--there have been _no_ prosecutions for "paramilitary >training." (There may have been some paramilitary types busted for >firing AK-47s, for trespassing, whatever. This is why I listed these as >exceptions.) > You are right. Actual cases in which the bare-assed anti-paramilitary training laws are applied are in short supply. Generally they are associated with other infractions. Do note, however that there is a consistent thread of discussing the speech and the act i.e. the manual-based "training" regarding propane cylinders and the actual posession of same. The separate items are not puniushable but together seem to imply conspiracy to commit the act. http://nwcitizen.com/publicgood/reports/bailhear.html http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/02/arizona.militia/ >Bell's AP was not one of the charges in his case. > Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the purpose of spicing up the case. >No point in going round and round. I don't think even the U.S.G. has >this power that you think it does, and I cite the non-prosecution of >many right-wing groups as evidence. When busts have occurred, other >alleged crimes were involved, like trespassing, violations of gun laws, >etc. > You are absolutely right. Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed, this degree of power is something for which they reach. Mike
Re: speech + action
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Where I think you misread me is this : I don't think that the government > *has* this power, I think the way the laws are written and discussed, > this degree of power is something for which they reach. Which must be continously tested by 'controversial' speech through mechanisms like mailing lists, anonymous remailers, data havens, etc. The question is not what they do about it, but rather if they do anything at all. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: speech + action
Declan McCullagh wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and > > unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with the > > purpose of spicing up the case. > > Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a > lot of time talking about how government officials should be > assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used > against you during your trial. > > But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power > position, from which you're now backtracking. > > -Declan > Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea. Mike
Re: speech + action
On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 10:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Declan McCullagh wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and >>> unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with >>> the >>> purpose of spicing up the case. >> >> Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a >> lot of time talking about how government officials should be >> assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used >> against you during your trial. >> >> But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power >> position, from which you're now backtracking. >> >> -Declan >> > Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the > letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the > reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well. > > 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea. > Please explain. You made the first assertion of this, then "backslid" as people poked holes in your argument, now you appear to be swinging back in the other direction merely by asserting something about "seeds." Could you give a cite for any prosecutions, or are you just speculating that "Happy Fun Court" will not be "amused" by free speech? Comment: It seems to me we are seeing way too many people hitting the panic button, speculating about some of us getting shot by agents of happy fun courts, claiming that merely using secrecy methods is spoliation, arguing that speech is being criminalized, and that, in essence, we'd all better just slink away from these free speech and crypto thoughtcrimes. Fuck that. Don't let the wuss ninnies scare you off. --TIm May
Re: speech + action
Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : >On Tuesday, September 4, 2001, at 10:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Declan McCullagh wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 10:59:54AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> Sure, I mention it because despite its being non-functional and >>>> unpunishable it seemed to have been brought into the courtroom with >>>> the >>>> purpose of spicing up the case. >>> >>> Sure. If you commit unacceptable-to-the-gvt *actions* and also spend a >>> lot of time talking about how government officials should be >>> assassinated, you may reasonably expect those statements to be used >>> against you during your trial. >>> I think the speech, irrelevant as it was, was used to increase the perceived severity of the actions. Isn't this in effect being punished for speech+action? >>> But that is a far cry from your earlier government-has-this-power >>> position, from which you're now backtracking. >>> >>> -Declan >>> >> Not so much backtracking as thinking out loud. Just musing on how the >> letter of the law, its constitutionality, enforcement and even the >> reasoning behind its creation are not always lined up so well. >> >> 18 U.S.C. 23 1 contains the seeds of the speech+action idea. >> > >Please explain. You made the first assertion of this, then "backslid" as >people poked holes in your argument, now you appear to be swinging back >in the other direction merely by asserting something about "seeds." > Really little to explain. Obviously laws cover speech + action. It's just a question of where the boundaries are in their application. I don't know too much about those finer points. [CITE: 18USC371] TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I--CRIMES CHAPTER 19--CONSPIRACY Sec. 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Could this be applied to software development? I suppose that depends on whether the software in design is prohibited or not. Until the DMCA is altered or deleted there's already a class of SW that is illegal. It doesn't seem so far-fetched that a discussion of content piracy followed by an active coding project could be attacked. Why not a discussion of tax evasion methods followed by a development project? And don't forget that it's still possible to run afoul of the crypto export regulations. Are our visionary legislators capable of outlawing new classes of software? It's a sure bet. I'll leave it to the lawyers to argue over how specific the speech and actions need to be. Want to test it? Start a project with the stated goals of providing a neat open source project with the stated purpose of cracking and exchanging e-books and start posting code. If you were to start YAPPFSP ( yet another peer to peer file sharing project ) would you state its purpose as "to share pirated music data?" >Could you give a cite for any prosecutions, or are you just speculating >that "Happy Fun Court" will not be "amused" by free speech? > I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy cases involving the more blatant crimes like kidnapping etc... Are there any militia cases? Like you said, try and find one. The law as written does seem to outlaw speech. The anti-militia laws are interesting in that the least popular are likely to suffer first from "creative" legislation. If an approach is successful against the unpopular then it can always be expanded to include new groups. I offer the bomz and drug speech legislation as further attempts along the same lines. Successful, no, not yet, but they'll keep trying. If they are eventually successful it will cost somebody a bundle to get it overturned. That's a market problem : it's cheaper to make bad law than it is to unmake it. As for the fictional Happy Fun Court's inquisitorial wet dreams, it can go spoliate its head in a bucket. >Comment: It seems to me we are seeing way too many people hitting the >panic button, speculating about some of us getting shot by agents of >happy fun courts, claiming that merely using secrecy methods is >spoliation, arguing that speech is being criminalized, and that, in >essence, we'd all better just slink away from these free speech and >crypto thoughtcrimes. > Speculating yes, panic button, no. It can be instru
