Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!jarthur!usc!apple!well!jef
From: jef@well.sf.ca.us (Jef Poskanzer)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality
Message-ID: <20163@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: 7 Sep 90 03:37:45 GMT
References: <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us>
Organization: Paratheo-Anametamystikhood Of Eris Esoteric, Ada Lovelace Cabal
Lines: 20

In the referenced message, spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) wrote:
}This thread of discussion started when I pointed out that comparing
}the New York Times to Phrack for purposes of argument is probably
}specious.

Well, it turns out that the government disagrees, since the indictment
against Craig Neidorf referred to him as a publisher and to Phrack as a
publication.  (Relevant quotes:  "At all time relevant herein, CRAIG
NEIDORF, defendant herein, was a publisher and editor of a computer
hacker newsletter known as 'PHRACK'.", "...and then publishing the
information from the computerized files in a hacker publication...")

It was not a first amendment issue at all.  Gene's line of argument is
what is specious.
---
Jef

  Jef Poskanzer  jef@well.sf.ca.us  {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef
"Nor is the people's judgement always true; the most may err as grossly
                      as the few." -- John Dryden