From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 23:36:48 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199608030750.CAA11930@einstein>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960803063907.28773A-100000@eff.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Jim Choate wrote:

> 
> It isn't my interpretation. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in
> class. These issues have never been tested in a court of law in the US in
> regards to computer networks and their special nature.

[...]

> That is a two edged sword. Where did you get your law degree? My lawyers
> both got theirs at UT Austin Law School. Both are federal lawyers and both
> have argued before the Supreme and are currently allowed to argue before the
> Supremes.


I've deleted most of Jim's meanderings above, mostly because I'm 
fascinated by the credentialism in the graf above.

He implies, without directly saying so, that "his lawyers" have weighed 
in on this dispute and agree with him. Of course this is hardly likely; 
he advances no coherent legal theory. (Except the "public forum" 
argument, which might apply to Usenet, but not cypherpunks.)

This is attempted proof by credentalism. I call him on it. 

Okay, Jim, what _do_ your lawyers say on this? Have you asked them? I,
too, have an attorney, a civil liberties specialist and a graduate from
Princeton law. So what? 

-Declan



// declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //