1997-05-06 - Re: FC: Responses to Tim May’s criticism of SAFE, and a rebuttal

Header Data

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

Raw message

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.