From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 00:12:02 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Talk of Banning Research into Human Cloning (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199801130612.AAA25763@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <199801131602.RAA06619@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > There is no ban on publishing information on cloning, "just" a ban on the
> > activity.
> 
> Spin doctor bullshit. Without the research there isn't anything to publish.
> By banning the basic research we would in fact be banning the publishing of
> the results of that scientific research.

This is a more significant difference than you let on: if the research is
done abroad, it can be published here.  To the extent that one can
theorize without experimenting, that too can be done here.  

> Not at all. Equating swinging of ones fist in a empty field and swinging it
> into somebodies nose and then taking that supposition as justification to
> ban fist swinging *is* most certainly unconstitutional. Furthermore, robbery

Congress has the power to choose whether to ban acts when the cause a harm
(fists that connect to federal noses), or just to ban acts whether or not
they cause harms (sending threats to government officials; broadcasting
without a license on an unused frequency).  Like it or not, there is no
question that most of these bans -- including the cloning ban -- are
constitutional under the commerce and other powers, the copyrights clause
notwithstanding. 

PS.  I killfiled this guy ages ago on the grounds of rudeness, general
unpleasantness, and especially a complete and utter incomprehension about
how the law in this country operates.  It is as if someone once read some
software company's publicity about how easy it is to operate their
software and concluded they should therefore be able to write programs in
any language.  

Since someone forwarded me this post, I'm replying to it, but I doubt I'll
bother doing so in the future.  I entered this thread because Tim May made
some comments; I respect his writing and I think other people probably do
too.  As a result, it seemed important to offer some basic doctrine as a
response.  Note, again, that I'm not expressing a view on the MERITS of
the legislation, just one law professor's view on whether courts would be
likely to uphold it if it passes. 
 
A. Michael Froomkin          +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law   
U. Miami School of Law       froomkin@ no spam please
P.O. Box 248087              http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA   It's warm here.