Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon.Stanford.EDU!stanton From: stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 91 15:48:17 GMT References: <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 95 In-Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu's message of 13 Apr 91 14:24:07 GMT In article <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: A car, on the public highway (which is the only place where its use is in any way restricted,) utilizes a limited resource, roads. When someone explains to my satisfaction how using a computer utlizes a similarly limited resource, I'll begin to consider the validity of your statement. Ok, I'll grant you that the analogy was not accurate. (Although we do have non-highway restrictions (e.g. handicap parking spaces)). A better analogy would have been the "right to use a garbage disposal". The point I was trying to make was that the rights our Constitution tries to protect are more general than "the right to use a computer". We must be *very* careful when modifying the Constitution because those changes are much harder to reverse than normal legislation. This is a very very dangerous exercise. My words are being equated with the use of a dangerous weapon. It is the free dissemination of your words, and mine, and everyone elses, which is the only assurance we have of continuing those freedoms we presently enjoy. Please understand that it requires a conspiracy of a significant portion of our society to assure maintenance of the constitution. And it seems that in the ranks of that segment of society which concerns itself professionally with law enforcement, there is a fear of the new empowerment to communicate which we call computers and networks. I agree completely that what we want is free dissemination of words. I do not agree that it is appropriate to put specific mechanisms of protection into the Constitution. If you want an example of how not to deal with problems, look at the Texas state constitution. That document has so much cruft tacked onto it that it is basically meaningless as anything other than a laundry list of past laws, good or bad. So far we have managed to keep the national Constitution relatively clean (with a few notable exceptions like prohibition). If we add too much to the Constitution, it loses some of its power because it becomes harder to understand and interpret. The real problem is that the Constitution is being ignored by the law enforcement agencies. This is not a result of a defect in the Constitution, rather it is a result of overzealous application of outdated or bad laws. We should change the laws, not the Constitution. It took much to achieve those rights, which are constantly in the process of being whittled away by new understandings and new laws, till it takes a public uproar to quell some particular abridgement or another. A computer isn't a printing press, no matter that we wish it so and no matter that the possiblity of distribution far exceeds the capabilities of the presses which existed in the days when this protection was wrought. This is a somewhat different debate, and I pretty much agree that computers do not fit in the existing molds. I actually think computers are more akin to speech than press in many cases. Nevertheless, I think the combination of free speech and free press ought to be broad enough to cover computer assisted communication. The entire reason for this newsgroup is quite simply that the government has already abridged a goodly number of our rights in an organized fashion, and we're exploring all the legal ways to prevent future recurrence. The very constitutional protections you mention were violated, in my opinion. And many people share this view. I agree completely. But what we need is the correct application of the existing constitutional protections. Simply adding a new list of specific cases is not going to solve anything. The Constitution defines our rights perfectly adequately as is. The problem lies in the implementation (or lack thereof) of the protection of those rights. You've raised some excellent points here, unfortunately not to my liking, but quite valid nonetheless. I don't like the idea of mucking about with the constitution any more than absolutely necessary. But my only problems with the way law enforcement activities have been carried out in the past several years has to do with the government's violation of our constitutional rights. And I am afraid that somehow the only appropriate response will be to modify at the root. I don't see how changing the Constitution is going to solve anything here. The problem is that the Constitution is being ignored or mis-interpreted. The correct response is not to tack junk onto the end of the document. We should be removing the people from power who are not performing to our liking. We should be enacting laws that protect the freedoms we hold dear. The Constitution is not a panacea for our troubles, it merely provides a baseline from which to measure our governmental actions. My main point is that there is nothing wrong with the baseline. We just haven't been paying close enough attention to it. Why would you wish to regulate it. Since it is already being regulated, perhaps the only way to remove direct regulation already emplaced is by attaching the new understandings to the constitution. No, the right way to do this is to remove the bad laws and enact better ones. If we can muster enough support to warrant a Constitutional Convention, then we can certainly rewrite the laws we don't like. -- --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)