Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!motcsd!mcdcup!mcdchg!ddsw1!zane From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Amendments Message-ID: <1991Apr19.023504.21791@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 19 Apr 91 02:35:04 GMT References: Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL Lines: 20 In article stanton@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanton) writes: > >I don't think we should try to make using computers a 'right' any more >than we should make the use of a car a 'right'. There are situations >where it is both Constitutional and proper to deny someone the >privilege of driving. I can imagine similar cases for the use of >computer equipment. We should not lose sight of the fact that the use >of computers is a means to an end rather than an end in itself. What >we want to protect is the end. WHAT?! It is Constitutional to deny someone the right to drive on public roads because he/she may hurt someone by lack of ability or responsibilty. They can even own the car. The government has no right to tell someone that he can't drive his car on his own personal road. (Suppose the guy is rich.) So if I have a computer in my home, the govt. can't say, "Don't use it because I saw that you were not using it responsibly, you may have damaged your sister's term paper." (Althought your SISTER may not let you use the computer after that. :-) -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM