From: tallpaul@pipeline.com (tallpaul)
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 08:21:51 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Tell me whats wrong with this
Message-ID: <199602091703.MAA06951@pipe9.nyc.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Feb 09, 1996 06:39:28, 'Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>' wrote: 
 
 
> 
>"Your Honor, I plead necessity.  The reason I violated this law was so
that 
>I would have plenty of practice in case I ever find myself in a
totalitarian 
>state.  Since the laws of the US and International Law permit (and in some

>cases require) me to violate the laws of a totalitarian state, I need to 
>practice law violation under the less stressful circumstances of the
current 
>US.  Without practice, I won't be able to violate totalitarian laws
smoothly 
>and thus might have to obey them.  This could put me in jeopardy under 
>International Law.  Necessity defense." 
> 
 
Perry: I plead necessity. 
 
"The reason I posted my latest tract on why all men are rapists to the
cypherpunk list was so that I would have plenty of practice in case I ever
find myself in a society trying to argue against fundamental rights. I need
to practice arguing against these things under less stressful circumstances
of the current US. Without practice, I won't be able to argue for civil
liberties smoothly and thus might have to obey bad laws in a society
without those liberties. This could put me in jeopardy under those laws.
Necessity defense." 
 
     ==Andr*a Dw*rk*n 
 
Other than that, nothing is wrong with it, Duncan. Within limits you can
argue in court whatever the judge lets you argue. I am not sure that the
judge would even listen. 
 
I also suspect that if you relied on this defense you would rapidly be
convicted. But that,of course, is something you have the freedom to do. 
 
--tallpaul