Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!mnemonic
From: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Bye
Summary: Godwin apologizes to Spafford
Message-ID: <37082@ut-emx>
Date: 11 Sep 90 22:57:46 GMT
References: <11651@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@ut-emx
Reply-To: mnemonic@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Mike Godwin)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 50

I disagree with many of the representations Spafford makes in his
good-bye posting. But rather than take him to task for them, I want
to apologize for calling him a liar in e-mail. As he correctly
pointed out, it is not inconceivable that he could have missed
my answers to his legal questions as the result of propagation 
problems.

In article <11651@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@uther.cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:

>The last straw was some mailed abuse from Mike Godwin, accuing me of
>being a liar (among other things) because I had not seen something he
>alleges he posted.  Obviously a student of the principle of reasonable
>doubt, Mr. Godwin is.  A fine lawyer-to-be and person to defend the
>rights of others.  If his posted version matches his mailed version,
>it provides even more evidence of what I meant when I said we have to
>define responsible use of networks and systems.  If not, you haven't
>missed anything witty.

Although I was wrong to accuse Spafford of lying, I mention in 
my defense that I did grow a little irritated when I kept posting
replies to his messages to which he responded (or seemed to respond)
by saying he wanted to know what an "expert" thought. 

It seems unlikely to me that Spafford himself is enough of an
expert to pronounce judgment on my legal kknowledge and skills
(at one point he seemed to think that I hadn't finished law school)
as he does in the quoted passage above.

Finally, I find it ironic to see Spafford invoke "reasonable doubt"
on his own behalf when he invariably dismisses the likelihood of
"reasonable doubt" when he talks about the current hacker cases.

Again, I apologize to Spafford. I was angry. I still *am* appalled
at what I cannot help but regard as his lack of concern for the 
genuine legal and Constitutional issues raised by the hacker
prosecutions. But I was mistaken to conclude that, just because he
had adopted a particularly repellent viewpoint, he had lied as
well.



--Mike




Mike Godwin, UT Law School  |"If the doors of perception were cleansed
mnemonic@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | every thing would appear to man as it is,
(512) 346-4190              | infinite."
                            |                 --Blake