From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 01:24:48 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Speech as co-conspiring? I don't think so.
In-Reply-To: <199711011630.LAA23465@mx01.together.net>
Message-ID: <v03102808b08102a45f8d@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 9:30 AM -0700 11/1/97, Brian B. Riley wrote:
>On 10/29/97 10:06 AM, Tim May (tcmay@got.net)  passed this wisdom:

>>* the First Amendment is seen as a minor obstacle to prosecution.
>>Hayes congratulates his assistant at the end for finding a way
>>around the First as a defense.
>
>  Thats not how I viewed it, I don't remeber the words, but I saw it that
>he was not going to 'go after' the first amendment and cautioned them
>about how unwise that was.

You said in your other post this morning that you thought this was clearly
not a First Amendment case. I disagree. Though the episode obfuscated the
issue. Read on.




>>* the talk show host has apparently done nothing more than many of
>>us havedone on this list
>>
>>* he is convicted because he claimed not to have ever met the
>>murderer, buta tearful witness (girlfriend of the murderer) says
>>they did meet, briefly.
>>
>>(No evidence is presented that the talk show host participated,
>>supplied weapons, encouraged the murderer, etc.)
>
>  maybe I am dreaming about something else, but I think they clearly
>showed that he had met with the guy and was fully aware that he was a
>crazy and could be pushed over the line

Since when is broadcasting a radio to relevision show or writing an essay
evidence of complicity in a murder, even when it "pushes someone over the
line"?

Is Senator Helms responsible if somebody shoots Clinton? ("Clinton had
better be wearing a bulletproof vest if he visits my state") How about talk
show host G. Gordon Liddy? ("Go for head shots")

How about the people on this list? Am I culpable for the actions of, say,
Jim Bell?

If this is the criterion, all publication and broadcast will cease if the
broadcaster or publisher or writer or whatever has any belief that some
crazy person might hear his words and act on it. If Dan Rather knows that
some crazy person watches his show and is enraged to see interracial
marriages, for example, is Dan then complicit when he shows such a scene
and the crazy racist commits murder?

(Would it matter if Dan Rather had been witnessed personally speaking to
the crazy racist?)

As the "Michael Hayes" episode showed things, the radio show guy had only
barely met the guy, in passing. This does not make him responsible for the
actions of the guy. (I agree that the talk show guy was stupid to have
denied meeting the shooter....he could have just said, "I meet a lot of
people...I don't remember all of them.")

(I think this was thrown in to obfuscate the basic constitutional issues,
hence my earlier comment that the talk show host was apparently convicted
because he lied, and not on the real issue of culpability. Bad writing. Bad
law.)

Lawyers talk about a "nexus." If I rant and rave on this list about taking
action against the State, about defending myself in predawn ninja raids,
and then someone like Bell or Vulis or Detweiler actually goes out and
(allegedly) commits some crime, can I held to be a co-conspirator or a
co-participant?

Even if I _know_ they're crazy?

If there is no nexus, no direct contact, then culpability is lost.

(One defense in court I would use to the "and was fully aware that he was a
crazy" point Brian raised above is "I'm not his psychiatrist...I didn't
diagnose him." Lawyers are always fond of reminding witnesses that they're
not qualified in certain areas, so....)

Look, I disagree with the "hate speech" laws, as many free speech advocates
do. (Check out what the ACLU has to say about such laws.) But the most the
talk show host should have been charged with was a violation of the hate
speech laws (not that I support this). Calling him a co-conspirator in a
murder is ludicrous.

But since I don't who on this list is crazy and who is not, and who may be
arrested tomorrow or during the Thanksgiving Day Raids, I'd better shut up.

--Tim May, Co-Conspirator in the Bell Case

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."