Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!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: 21 Apr 91 22:26:35 GMT References: <1475@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA Lines: 75 In-Reply-To: learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu's message of 20 Apr 91 20:30:33 GMT In article <1487@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William Vajk ) writes: But you're still sidestepping the crucial element in all this. So far, you've admitted that "it doesn't make sense" to license computer use. It doesn't indeed. And yet you're not willing to accord use of a computer the same status as creating light for oneself after dark, or any other of a million things we do and take for granted. A computer happens to be the latest gadget. Do you believe you have a right to create light after dark ? Do you believe you can use other technological gadgets as a "right" ? Maybe like a blender, or a microwave, or a gas range ? Or is there something inherent in "devices" and "gadgets" that subjects them to potential for license ? I am definitely according computers the same status as any other tool. And no, the use of those tools is *not* a right. The things that end up in the Constitution are those issues with widely scattered and widely based ramifications. I haven't yet suggested what form of an ammendment I might propose. I think it a bit presumptious of anyone to arbitrarily decide against something so undefined as 'an ammendment which would include computers.' First of all, this thread started with a specific proposal, so I wasn't deciding against an unspecified ammendment. "An ammendment which would include computers" is a very different beast from one which simply denies Congress the ability to regulate computers. My original comment was that something like the latter belongs in a law, not the Constitution. And I maintain that we already have several ammendments which include the uses of computers that we wish to protect (e.g. free speech, free press, free assembly). I think we need to have a much better understanding of the ramifications before we go mucking about in the Constitution. What we always get down to near the end of discussions such as this one is that the Constitution is a guide. Every time we are forced to resort to the Supreme Court to resolve an issue, it implys that there has been a failure in the concept known as "the Rule of Law." And please don't assume you know what the term means unless you REALLY do know what it means. If you look at the history of the SC, you'll see a decision that "equal but separate is acceptable." A few years later, they reversed that verdict. There were no changes to any societal contexts between the two verdicts. The "Rule of Law" itself isn't quite as stable as I would like. First of all, I find "Rule of Law" to be a red herring. When I look around me, I don't see that our legal system holds to this concept in any real situations. Justices use their discretion constantly in deciding cases. The law often conflicts or is unclear in specific instances. I personally don't want to live in a society where law is applied without discretion. That's the sort of nightmare about which Orwell was warning us. The whole point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution in a context. If you don't think the social context changed in the '50s and '60s, then I'm afraid you weren't paying close enough attention. Of course we have to be careful whom we appoint to the SC, justices are only human, you know. This doesn't mean that we should keep rewriting the Constitution to keep them from making mistakes or interpreting the Constitution in ways we don't like. I don't believe the Constitution is quite so sacred as to be above filling the needs of the times, by modification if necessary. We've experienced a reversal of an ammendment before. We've experienced reversals of the Supreme Court's understandings regarding the Constitution. And if a change will result in an improved understanding, I have no objections to changing the highest laws of the land. I would have to hear some very convincing arguments before I believe that any ammendment is going to improve understanding. I won't rule it out, but I'll have to hear some pretty good reasons before I believe it in any particular case. I haven't seen any good explanations for why the existing Bill of Rights can't handle our current problems. -- --Scott (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)