From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 03:23:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
In-Reply-To: <199712011825.TAA22548@basement.replay.com>
Message-ID: <v0310280cb0a8aadbfb97@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 11:25 AM -0700 12/1/97, Anonymous wrote:

>You've both forgotton the fourth leg of the tripod, the one where Tim May
>calls for the governor of Florida to be shot (along with other officials).
>Governor Chiles' capital crime?  He refused to allow California wine to
>be sold in Florida.  On Fri, 9 May 1997, Tim May wrote:
>
>> Chiles and his co-conspirators should be shot for high crimes against the
>> Constitution. After Clinton, Freeh, Kerrey, and the other traitors.
>
>Everyone likes to overlook this, pretending that May didn't mean it.  Well,
>he never withdrew it, did he?  He never apologized for it.  He's on the
>record as explicitly calling for the murder of high officials.

Withdraw it? Apologize for it?

I am free to call for the execution of anyone I damned well wish. OJ,
McVeigh, the English nanny, Lawton Chiles, and so on. The First Amendment
doesn't contain exceptions for such things.

Sen. Jesse Helms was not prosecuted, nor even sanctioned by the Senate, for
saying that if President Clinton ever visits Georgia he'd better be wearing
a bulletproof vest.

Face it, Anonymous, free speech means just that. Short of directly
threatening the President or his family, or issuing direct (credible,
proximate) threats to judges and perhaps some others, we as Americans are
free to call for OJ to be taken out and have his throat cut, figuratively
speaking, to call for trials for various criminals (including political
criminals), and to speculate as we wish about whether the OKC bombing was a
good thing or not. Get used to it, Anonymous, as it's the law.

(More wimp simp jabbering elided....)

>Again, you will search the archives in vain to find any apology for this,
>any withdrawal.  May hides behind the words of others, as he does above,
>hoping that their softened interpretations will make people forget the
>plain facts about what he wrote.
>
>If Tim May does not agree with the quotes above, let him say so now.

Maybe I don't "withdraw" comments or "apologize" for them because I don't
do either. Ever think of that, Anonymous halfwit?

(Anonymity has certain aspects, good and bad. I notice, though, that an
inordinate number of my critics are using "Anonymous." Probably just one
frustrated do-gooder who can't stand the tenor of the list, but chooses to
remain anonymous out of simpering fear.)

I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Get used to it. Or leave, even better.

--Tim May



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."