From: Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 07:17:27 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Is Tim May guilty of illegally advocating revolution?
Message-ID: <199712012255.XAA26038@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



There's a fallacy which is quite common on this list, especially among
members whose positions are otherwise indefensible.  It's surprising in
a way because this fallacy is more common among statists.

There, the fallacy goes like this: if it is immoral, then it must be
illegal.  We see this all the time.  People think of the government as
their way of expressing moral values.  Drugs are wrong, so they must be
made illegal.  Discrimination in employment is wrong, so it also must
be illegal.  We have countless bad laws based on this false premise.

On this list we see the same fallacy, turned around: if it is legal, it
must be moral.  Someone is attacked for posting some vicious, hateful,
immoral rant, and they respond that what they said was legal, because of
freedom of speech and the First Amendment.  Their critic must be opposed
to free speech if he objects to their words.

Confusing what is legal and what is moral is a dangerous game.  It leads
to the false reasoning of the statists.  We must remember that there is
a clear distinction between morality and legality.

We all agree with freedom of speech.  People should be able to say
whatever they like without fear of legal consequences.  Cypherpunk
technologies can play a major part in assuring this freedom.

But this does not mean that all speech is equally valid.  If someone
calls for murder and they are attacked for it, it does no good for them to
hide behind the First Amendment.  Their words are wrong - they will have
harmful consequences if followed.  They cheapen life, and work against
the goals we share of a future based on cooperation rather than cooercion.
Cypherpunks are intelligent enough not to be fooled by this attempt
to use the principle of free speech to justify calls for violence and
murder.

It's no wonder, really, that people like May and Vulis attempt to confuse
the issue by pretending that their critics are opposed to freedom of
speech.  They know that if they are judged by their own words, their
character is revealed for all to see.  Any smokescreen is welcome if it
helps conceal their vicious, hateful nature.