From: Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 14:47:43 +0800
To: Declan McCullagh <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
In-Reply-To: <v03007807b0a402308a96@[204.254.21.48]>
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19971129223310.0072c8d8@popd.ix.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:45 AM 11/28/1997 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>	"//Actual, overt// incitement of the overthrow of the government
>	of the United States by force and violence, accompanied by the
>	language of direct and imminent incitement, is not freedom of
>	expression but a violation of Court-upheld legislative
>	proscriptions; yet the //theoretical// advocacy of such
>	overthrow, on the other hand, has been a judicially recognized
>	protected freedom since 1957." [See Yates v. United States, 354
>	U.S. 298 (1957), particularly Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion for
>	the 6:1 court.] (Emphasis in the original. --DM)
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page=2
Actually, the linewrap munged the "page=298" at the end, leaving a 
reference is Reid vs. Covert, another fascinating case, 
dealing with the limits on US jurisdiction on citizens outside the 48 states,
in particarticular military jurisdiction and territorial jurisdictions
(including pointers to the cases about confiscation of Mormon Church property
during the Defense Of Marriage\\\\\\\\\\\anti-polygamy legislation.)

Yates, a case about the legalization of Communism, is at
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=354&page=298 .
While the primary opinion of the court was as above, the court
unfortunately stopped short of the blazingly absolutist defense of free speech
by Justice Hugo Black (joined by Douglas), in an opinion that partially
concurs and partially dissents, and is therefore only dicta.
	"I believe that the First Amendment forbids Congress to punish people 
	for talking about public affairs, whether or not such discussion
	incites to action, legal or illegal."   ......

It was either this case or cases like it that spurred the
John Birch Society to their calls for impeaching Earl Warren,
even before that pinko compounded his anti-Americanism by
insisting that cops read people their rights and get search warrants.

As for the case of May vs. Reno, 99 US 666 (1999) (:-), I've never
heard Tim call for the violent overthrow of the US government.
He's called for a far more dangerous method of getting rid of it
(rendering it obsolete and letting the public catch on at their own speed),
and he's also expressed the position that if a bunch of 
black-hooded thugs invade his house some night he'll defend himself
first and not worry about checking their bodies for stinkin' badges
or designer logos on their backs until the bullets stop flying.  

Not guilty.


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, stewarts@ix.netcom.com
Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639