1997-10-16 - Re: America as a Shake Down Extortion State

Header Data

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: Ryan Anderson <randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu>
Message Hash: 4d9f8c6dfbe3239fdd88215ceba55ad14ce6f4a65c1bbf726ddc3f16f567a0f0
Message ID: <v03007810b06c15543dd6@[168.161.105.141]>
Reply To: <800ba9b5ce70bcdb069766023ed9e797@anon.efga.org>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-16 19:37:50 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:37:50 +0800

Raw message

From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:37:50 +0800
To: Ryan Anderson <randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu>
Subject: Re: America as a Shake Down Extortion State
In-Reply-To: <800ba9b5ce70bcdb069766023ed9e797@anon.efga.org>
Message-ID: <v03007810b06c15543dd6@[168.161.105.141]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Certainly I trust the courts at least a little more than I do the
legislature. The current Supreme Court, for example in the _McIntyre_ case
and the CDA, has been quite good on traditional free speech cases.

But courts are much more deferential to the government on national security
issues, even trumped-up ones. While the right to speak privately is (I
believe) an important free speech issue, traditional jurists may be
reluctant to agree.

In other words: don't rely on the current Supreme Court to overturn a
mandatory-GAK law, especially if it has holes cut out of the escrow fabric
for corporations, etc.

-Declan



At 19:21 -0400 10/10/97, Ryan Anderson wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>At 01:32 PM 10/10/97 -0400, Anonymous wrote:
>>>Actually, I think it's a little more likely that they'll get disgusted with
>
>>>Congress, and collect some money for the ACLU to use to pay their lawyers
>in
>>>the instant filing of the consitutionality challenge.
>>>
>>>Seems to be a much more productive way to spend your money (long-term).
>>
>>Bullshit!  Fuck the lawyers!
>>
>>By wasting time and money in the courts bickering about the stupid laws that
>
>>buffoons in Congress pass in order to justify their existence, we are only
>>ignoring the real issue: you cannot use the system to change the system.
>
>That's the point - you ignore the legislation until it becomes a problem for
>you.  Then you challenge it and get a legal precedent to stop it from
>happening again.
>
>The judicial system is in *much* better shape than the legislative system
>(even though they are strongly related)
>
>This, however, is not to say that the judicial system is in good shape.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
>Charset: noconv
>
>iQCVAwUBND64fDc3ytqHnNyNAQFdUwP+NxJiiOfCxa8b6ONY0sLxFt8+NZBcf0fr
>WkYH4xA33a+Q1B81YL0CNQqxRpVue+CWh0Qp1JLKIHZjKrI/hMHmo/znCpJO6uDP
>4BRzq8LauWF8OTKT/r7Q2dJbqSs1ISb9FZE3FOYK0lb0By7w+TfiRXzUwTkYCH6E
>7vKvV/4PsuU=
>=5vpe
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ryan Anderson - <Pug Majere>     "Who knows, even the horse might sing"
>Wayne State University - CULMA   "May you live in interesting times.."
>randerso@ece.eng.wayne.edu
>PGP Fingerprint - 7E 8E C6 54 96 AC D9 57  E4 F8 AE 9C 10 7E 78 C9
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------








Thread