Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!rice!uw-beaver!milton!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!iwarp.intel.com!gargoyle!learn
From: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk )
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Amendments
Message-ID: <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Date: 17 Apr 91 23:05:27 GMT
References: <STANTON.91Apr12120958@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <STANTON.91Apr15114817@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dares No Organization Like Dis Organization
Lines: 59

In article <STANTON.91Apr15114817@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Scott Stanton writes:

>In article <1455@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. 

>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.

I don't dispute the extra care that should be taken with constitutional
ammendments, but also recall the mission impossible undertaken in the
last attempt at such an ammendment.

But you still haven't addressed the issue of computer use limitations by
drawing what I consider to be a viable analogy. I would liken computer
use more to that of a sliderule, or perhaps a paperless typewriter, in the 
sense of requiring as a minimum only a small 'space' than I would
to a garbage disposal which must, by its nature, utilize resources outside
the immediate sphere of the user. I can envision absolutely no logic to
licensing, or making use of, a privilege, where is where this discussion
opened.

>   Please understand that it requires a conspiracy of a significant portion 
>   of our society to assure maintenance of the constitution. 

>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.  

Could you please be a bit more specific in this regard ? I don't have
a copy of the Texas Constitution readily available to determine how 
anything there might apply directly to the difficulties under discussion.

>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.  

I'll take your word for the content. On the other hand, I am not so certain
that the usefulness is quite so limited as you understand.

>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.

Indeed, it has actually been, to some extent, the simple elegance of the
US Constitution which has made it so difficult to understand and to
interpret. Remember too that as long as the constitution remains deviod
of detail, successive Supreme Courts have rendered opposite verdicts
for identical reasons.

Bill Vajk