From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 04:36:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Freedom of speech question...
Message-ID: <199602012012.OAA00279@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



It is a commenly held belief that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a
crime because of the potential for harm to persons and property. It is one
of the most commen examples given for limiting freedom of speech even though
the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law...". This view is proposed
as a equaly valid rationale for limiting crypto, virus technology, drugs,
etc.

My question to the list is would it be a crime if you were alone in the
theatre? If you developed a virus and didn't distribute it would that be a
crime? If you give it to one person is it a crime? How about if you give it
to millions? How many people must know a fact, posses source code or
executable. In short, does freedom of speech rest on how many people are
aware of your expression?

My position is that if you answer in the affermative then you are basicaly
stating there is no freedom of speech. It should be perfectly permissible
to shout 'fire' in a theatre filled to the brim. If anyone takes you
seriously and is harmed then you should be liable for the damage. Your right
to shout 'fire' is not relevant. If you accept the premise then what you are
buying into is preemptive justice, in short judging somebody guilty by what
they might do, not what they have done. If this is permitted then we have a
serious problem in that anyperson is therefore guilty of whatever crime is
desired.