From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 12:18:53 +0800
To: tzeruch@ceddec.com
Subject: Re: Thoughtcrime   (Re: My War)
In-Reply-To: <v03102800afc399044c85@[10.0.2.15]>
Message-ID: <v03102800afc5070052fa@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Steve Schear wrote:
>
>> All prohibition of speech should be based on the judgement of whether or
>> not specific individiuals (not general groups or socienty at large) can be
>> reasonably be deduced to be at immediate risk or be harmed from that speech.
>
>So, if "speech" can cause individuals in X to harm individuals in Y, there
>is reason to prohibit it.

Only if the risk is immediate.

>
>> I find lust to be a noble urge.
>

My ideas originate above my limbic system.

Then you've undoubtedly removed yourself from the gene pool ;-)

[snip]
>The information on how to do demolition is available from the army, and
>the ingredients were commonly available.  As was the truck he used to
>transport it.  We can prevent many fires by an outright ban on gasoline.
>
>What item, if banned, would have prevented the act?

None that wouldn't adversely impact legitimate activities.

>
>> >But I would not want to have someone leave the two components to a binary
>> >nerve gas on a shelf...
>>
>> Now you've transgressed from speech to possession.
>
>I thought libertarians thought any mere possession should not be a crime.

I don't have any problem with sales high-performance autos, or for that
matter possession of substances or machanisms as long as any citizen who
can demonstrate (anonymously) to a regulatory agency that they understand
the use of such items can keep them.

>> >This form of "information" is an addictive drug, with the side effect is
>> >that it destroys others much more than it destroys the abuser,
>>
>> Can you back up this assertion with clinical data?
>
>Not off hand.  I also cannot back up the statement that I will die if I
>drink a particular poison (since I may have a particular immunity) without
>conducting the test.  Can you suggest how we may conduct such a test on
>kiddie porn without threatening children?

No, but I think those who suggest such restrictions should be forced to
personally fund such research.

>
>No, I am an autoarchist not an anarchist.  I belive in self-control which
>is the difference between liberty an license.  If liberty is given to
>barbarians it will be lost for everyone.

Liberty never given its won or taken.

Self-control is too nebulous, for me I prefer responsibility.

>
>I want cryptography available even though it makes child-porn easier to
>hide for the same reason I want gasoline available although it makes arson
>easier to commit.  But I do not have to be pro-arson to be pro-gasoline.
>
>And I can differentiate between ideas (which are protected free speech),
>and things without any such content.

Ideas are not protected speech, since they only exist in the mind, only
expressions are protected.  As I stated earlier, all expressions (however
objectionable they may be to some or many members of society) deserve
protection, unless they immediately threaten (or server to incite others to
threaten) the physical well being of specific individuals or groups.  Porn
and instructions for making conventional or weapons of mass distruction
should not be regulated.

--Steve