From: f_estema@alcor.concordia.ca
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:38:00 -0800 (PST)
To: Dan Geer <geer@OpenMarket.com>
Subject: Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
In-Reply-To: <199701291545.KAA02713@waterville.openmarket.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.970129111058.7566D-100000@alcor.concordia.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Dan Geer wrote:

> Export controls are meaningless without domestic use restrictions and
> domestic use restrictions will never pass the test of the First
> Amendment.  <snip>

Just because something is unconstitutional doesn't mean that learned 
judicial appointees will find it unconstitutional. When domestic GAK is 
passed, it will be structured to fit into the judicial philosophy of the day.
This is under the same philosophy that says television shows are not 
speech, but rather a commercial enterprise. If the courts were first 
amendments absolutists, like the persons on these two lists, there would 
be no problem seeing porn on primetime TV. There would also be no V-chip law.

When they manage to get the political conscensus, they will pass it. 

Incidentally, I remind you of the results of the moot court that was held 
at one of the CFP conferences, where a GAK case was tried in front of 
real federal judges by real lawyers. Our side lost.