Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Musing on Constitutionality Message-ID: Date: 7 Sep 90 03:20:48 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: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15 In article <11608@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes: > 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. Did Phrack publish master-card numbers and instructions on how to use those numbers to commit fraud? I'm pretty sure that stuff like that has shown up in the "Getting Even" series, or "Dirty Tricks". Or how about the "Anarchist's Cookbook"? Or some of the stuff in the back of "Soldier of Fortune"? OK, so "Phrack" was more like "Soldier of Fortune" than the "Times". It should still be protected speech under the 1st amendment. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com