Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!dino!sharkey!tygra!hyprion!rabbit From: rabbit@hyprion.ddmi.com (Dr. Roger Rabbit) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality Message-ID: <55@hyprion.ddmi.com> Date: 7 Sep 90 05:30:30 GMT References: <11503@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <82778@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <11521@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <1990Sep3.182712.2260@world.std.com> <11548@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <12945@paperboy.OSF.ORG> <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Reply-To: rabbit@hyprion.UUCP (Dr. Roger Rabbit) Organization: Somewhere in Abilene, Kansas Lines: 100 In article <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: }In article <12945@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@tonic.osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: }>In article <11548@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: }>>The original point I was trying to make is that there is a significant }>>difference between a regularly-scheduled publication with identifiable }>>staff and open subscriptions, and someone xeroxing off a letter in }>>their basement that they mail off to a circle of friends. Whether or }> }>WHAT!?!?!?! }>Even if I run off a 'braodsheet', and pass it out for free in the street, I'm }>*still* protected by the First! }> }>Please, Gene, tell me you didn't *really* believe this! } }What does it mean to be "protected by the First"? } It means (to me at least) that you have the right to speak and to publish whatever you wish. If it slanders someone, they can sue you for defamation of character, etc but not for publishing itself. The same goes for illegal activities. If you publish a list of credit card numbers, etc, you should be prosecuted for engaging in credit fraud, not for publishing. The publishing should NEVER be a crime, only the act of commiting a crime. There are many ways in which these kinds of crimes can take place (ie: giving out the credit card number by phone, by e-mail, by US mail, etc). You must separate the act of publishing from the crime - they are not the same thing. }If the sheet you have run off in your basement slanders several }private citizens, and if it contains people's MasterCard numbers with }instructions on how to use those numbers to commit fraud, you are }definitely not "protected." Neither is the publisher or editor of a }regular newspaper who publishes the same thing. } Not protected from prosecution for fraud but protected from prosecution because you publish. }The first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law that }abridges the freedom of the press. That means, at least, there can be }no prior restraint. It also does NOT mean that the "press" has any It also means that they cannot "punish" people afterwards for publishing. If the law doesn't really say it, it ought to. }immunity from the law. It furthermore does not define "the press." } }I still contend that there is a significant difference between an }established newspaper and something run off in one's basement. There are differences as far as quality, but not 1st Amendment protection, buddy. }I have asked if there are any lawyers out there who *know* if that }difference has ever been the subject of a court case or law, or if }there is a formal legal definition of what "the press" is. } If you are trying to exclude some published material because it is "run off in a basement somewhere", then you are a dangerous man, Mr. Spafford. These "pamphlets" were the voices which called the opressed masses in Poland and other Eastern European countries. I have no patience for people who try to interpret the constitution in a way that limits rights. }Note that I have nowhere stated whether I believe there *should* be a }difference in the law. Whew - I hope not. }I do believe that members of the press should }not be immune for their actions. } Yes, but again - if they commit fraud or slander, prosecute the fraud or slander, not the publishing. }I have a second question for any legal historian types out there. A }comparison has been made here between the Phrack case and the Pentagon }Papers. The theme has been that law enforcement didn't try to }confiscate the printing presses of the newspaper. Yes, but the }question I have is, did they obtain a search warrant and confiscate }any of the newspaper's files? The confiscations & searches done }recently on computer systems seems to have been done because they have }attached storage, not because they are used as publishing tools. If }that is the case, the comparison obviously falls to pieces. } You know - I wonder why the SS just doesn't get a computer expert to come with them to the site of the raid and duplicate the hard drive contents? Why do they need to take someone's machine?? ... And, I DON'T want to hear anything that implies that "Oh well, if we're raiding them, they must be guilty of something...." -- >>> BAN: Nuclear Power, US Intervention in South America, Toxic Waste >>> (Including dip) Trash Incinerators, Nuclear Weapons, Poverty, >>> Racism, Sexism, Specieism, etc... Write to: Toons for a Better World, >>> 2001 Yatza St., Toontown, CA 90128 E-MAIL: rabbit@hyprion.thundercat.com