Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site gloria.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
From: colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: encrypted mail
Message-ID: <861@gloria.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 13:17:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: gloria.861
Posted: Wed Jun 19 13:17:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 04:16:35 EDT
References: <198@geowhiz.UUCP> <691@vortex.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SUNY-Buffalo Computer Sci.
Lines: 46

> Note that the right to distribute information is not absolute.
> We all know the one about "shouting fire in a crowded public place."

That's distributing mis-information, unless there's really a fire.

> There are others:
> 
> 1) Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.

In the electronic age, this will have to go by the boards.  Tell a
secret to one person and the whole world will know.  Blabbing a
group's secrets will be a crime only relative to that group.
(Notice that this implies the development of non-uniform law!)

> 2) Child pornograpy (obvious -- hopefully doesn't apply to
>    this net).

It could well apply.  At present anybody can mail or post pornographic
literature.

> 3) In many countries, the distribution of "hate literature"
>    is illegal (Canada, much of Europe).  In fact, Europe
>    dropped net.politics due to messages coming through the
>    gateway that were illegal over there!  Similar laws
>    are being considered in the U.S.--inspired by recent
>    Neo-Nazi events.

The nature of the medium makes this moot.  Print is great for
arousing hatred of abstractions, and radio is even better (as
Hitler knew well).  But the Net is a genuinely public medium.
When Don Black posted some Identity-Christian opinions a few
weeks ago, dozens of people criticized them on the spot.  You
can't do that to a pamphlet or a radio broadcast.

The Net is such an honest medium (compared to print or radio) that
we ought to encourage advocates of isms to express their hate here!

> 4) Libel and copyright violations we all know about.

And these too are meaningful only with respect to one-way mass media.
Is anybody here really afraid that Rich Rosen will attack his religion
or Ken Arndt his manhood?  I should like to see netusers be obliged to
waive all statutory rights of this sort with respect to one another.
-- 
Col. G. L. Sicherman
...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel