From: Lee Tien <tien@well.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 17:08:59 +0800
To: Tim May <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Bomb-making instructions....
In-Reply-To: <v03102802afd39c88cf3c@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v03007812afd3bd504797@[163.176.132.90]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

As I'm sure you know, CNN is probably safe in any case, reality being what
it is.

The fine line that DOJ recommended on the Feinstein Amendment is based
mainly on intent.  I don't have the report in front of me, but I think DOJ
recognized that widespread publication makes it harder to prove a nasty
intent.

Suppose CNN got the McVeigh transcripts, scanned them in, and put them up
on the Web.  It's pretty newsworthy.  Hard to see how there could be a
prosecution given the First Amendment, even if the Feinstein Amendment
became law.

Indeed, I would assume that the information would propagate to other sites
as well, including outside the United States.  At that point prosecution
seems even more difficult.

IMHO, proving intent is to some extent a function of how "public"
information is.  If information is publicly available but not very well
known, or perhaps more important, its being publicly available is not very
well known - then it is easier to convince a jury that knowing it implies
badness (unless you have a good, usually institution based, reason for
knowing it).

It would be an interesting piece of sociology of speech, law and technology
to do a serious, scholarly study of the public availability of existing
bombmaking information on the Web.  Where does it come from?  How much was
originally government information?  How accurate is it?  What kind of bombs
can be built with the info?  Who puts it up?  Then compare what's on the
Web to what's in university and public libraries.  This is the kind of
study that may not be doable once the Amendment passes, for obvious reasons.

Lee

At 8:32 PM -0700 6/22/97, Tim May wrote:
>The latest crime for which Senator Diane Swinestein has earned the
>[CENSORED] is her "bomb-making instructions on the Internet are illegal"
>bill.
>
>But I have a question. Does this mean CNN will face prosecution if it
>publishes the transcripts of the McVeigh case?




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBM645lbk2KqHYSFEtEQLqcgCfTdqRguMF3WMpKvr+W5Nps8mNqG0An2uK
2Uea0p5qjNCxIJiV5ROw8bAu
=AhyE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----