From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 01:57:07 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd)
Message-ID: <199608031527.KAA12332@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@eff.org>
> Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd)

> > 
> > 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.

What credentials mine or the lawyers?

> He implies, without directly saying so, that "his lawyers" have weighed 
> in on this dispute and agree with him.

Hmmm, I looked back over this and I fail to see where this interpretation
can be taken. Perhaps you as well read more than is on the page. If you
would like to address specific issues then perhaps there would be some basis
for dialog.

> 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.)

I have advanced several coherent theories. My primary one being that if the
9th and 10th are included in Constitutional interpretation many of the
issues, such as crypto and gun ownership, become trivial issues to resolve.
As to if it applies to cpunks and other similar 'private' resources, we will
just see how the court cases fall down the road.

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

Not any more than the original comments I was responding to. Anyway, what is
yoru credentials to 'call' me on it? While it may be true that you don't
agree with my views that hardly carries the weight to dismiss those views
out of hand. You sir, are not the legal benchmark in this country. I am
simply trying to change something I see as unjust.

> 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? 

Yes, I have asked them, both. They both agree that the issues that I raise
have NOT been tested in a court of law in this country (or any other) and
that it is possible that the inclusion of the 9th and 10th in a civil liberties case
could prove quite unsettling.  They have also warned me that quite a bit of
current legal precedence is in fact against my views. I accept this, just as
the folks who fought for womens suffrage or the end to slavery fought
against societies which enacted laws and policies that while accepted by the
vast majority as the status quo were never the less wrong. If my views were
the commen standard we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first
place.