From: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:22:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
In-Reply-To: <199609220730.AAA20792@dfw-ix2.ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.960922143515.533A-100000@gak>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sun, 22 Sep 1996, Bill Stewart wrote:

> The First Amendment does not contain the phrase "national security"
> anywhere in it.  It does, however, begin with a rather explicit
> "Congress shall make no law" which it applies to a bunch of things.
> However, the body of the Constitution does say there should be a
> Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has (fairly reasonably) given itself
> the job of deciding what's Constitutional and what's not.
> The Supremes have, over the years, made a bunch of generally outrageous
> decisions about what kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment
> and what kinds aren't, though their opinions have been gradually
> improving since some of the really appalling ones earlier in the century.

I did a little searching and couldn't find anything about a national security
exception in the Consitution.  It's already a stretch to claim that disclosure
of information vital to "nation security" is treason.  The Espionage Act, which
is so obviously unconstitutional, seems to make "harmful" speech illegal.

Mark
- -- 
PGP encrypted mail prefered.
Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBMkWIpCzIPc7jvyFpAQFJFggAi9H/vbu9GN21rbjJnhyUoHy3TEZ+1ZsI
in88Z9zqCuFyv28Q+vqKgTl0pvsBQNps1Ji4GXCv2LMaxGCbuzsvDLFxiqqVF8ev
fC7MB7fl1r33ik1QCngygoPonb9yj79Ok0oKgms6sNNsVEkGe3hn5QHahNc7TRJX
lzkHJ6ufVI/yNmh3KtqwWlAjE1vZ8esOrExRpiszrQDK1gDlNRFqA0Yor3bsDrlE
wedkFUioEbK0Xv24ajeU0s9dYgkDt25OxUENT2ddnqzD1lfVOrVLx1zmroMl4mh1
MC1D2dd8ErN25/V83phFLbpzNA7EPKYQyNZtzOY28uD/XpoqziGS1g==
=CrOM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----