Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!purdue!spaf
From: spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Publications (was Re: Musing on Constitutionality)
Message-ID: <11622@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 7 Sep 90 15:38:44 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> <55@hyprion.ddmi.com>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Reply-To: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 41

In article <55@hyprion.ddmi.com> rabbit@hyprion.UUCP (Dr. Roger Rabbit) writes:
>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.  

I'd like to think I'm dangerous no matter what I believe :-)

I'm not trying to exclude anything.  I'm trying to find out if someone
*knows* (not believes or hopes for) the legal definition of what makes
something a publication.  Further discussion on the topic is largely
meaningless otherwise.

Basically, you and I agree.  I guess I'm just bad at expressing it
and/or you are failing to see it.  I don't want any restrictions on
the right to publish (after all, I'm in a "publish or perish mode" :-)
but I also am against the contention that 1st amendment provides any
immunity from fraud prosecutions, or lawsuits for libel.  I'm trying
to find out what 200 years of legal precedent has done to define the
1st amendment -- not argue against it!

For instance, the government stipulated that Phrack was a publication,
Mr. Neidorf claimed it was a publication.  I claim it was publication.
You agree.  So does pretty much everybody else who has posted here.
So why are so many people posting messages implying I'm some sort of
fascist? 

I claim that I see a difference between a sheet run off on an
irregular basis in a basement and the NY Times.  I didn't claim it
deserves any less protection under the 1st (nor did I claim it
deserved the same -- I just said I see a difference).  I then asked if
there is a legally defined difference, and if there is a legal
definition of exactly what consititutes a publication.  I'm still
waiting for a definitive answer.  Personal attacks do not constitute
an informed answer. :-)


-- 
"I came here for an argument."
"Oh, sorry.  This is abuse.  Argument is next door over."

Gene Spafford