From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
To: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Message Hash: 85e357180a39451f470772c9e1c2142a5ff096c4a0b91e00fe673686c8b30be7
Message ID: <Pine.3.89.9705051657.A29826-0100000@netcom19>
Reply To: <199705051842.LAA21649@krypton.chromatic.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-06 00:10:54 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:10:54 +0800
From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:10:54 +0800
To: Ernest Hua <hua@chromatic.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Responses to Tim May's criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal
In-Reply-To: <199705051842.LAA21649@krypton.chromatic.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9705051657.A29826-0100000@netcom19>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Mon, 5 May 1997, Ernest Hua wrote:
> I don't completely like the first amendment argument because it is
> solely based on claiming that software is, first and foremost,
> expression. In fact, software has mechanism and side effect of
> mechanism. If software were strictly expression, it is hard to
> imagine how a multi-billion industry could have spawned from such an
> inert practice. Another example: one could argue that crafting an
> grenade launcher is artistic expression, but surely few would consider
> THAT argument when faced with such an "expressive" neighbor.
I concur. A citizen has the right to manufacture a grenade launcher under
the Second Amendment (irrespective of what judges scared into submission
by Roosevelt et al may have ruled), not the First.
Return to May 1997
Return to ““William H. Geiger III” <whgiii@amaranth.com>”