Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!SDS.SDSC.EDU!jordan%lvvb.span From: jordan%lvvb.span@SDS.SDSC.EDU (RICH) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple Subject: Re: pirating, etc. Message-ID: <880324204424.222002c4@Sds.Sdsc.Edu> Date: 24 Mar 88 20:44:24 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 52 This is a bit out of topic, but I had to respond to this. I'll be brief. On Wenesday, March 23rd, Larry Smith wrote (and included): . . > NEVER surrender ANY liberty for the sake of the security > of a few. . . (to a suggestion that modem purchases be age-restricted) . > Silly and unconstitutional. But I find the suggestion more disturbing than > the piracy. Don't people CONSIDER issues of fairness and constitutionality > before suggesting things like this? A democracy can become a tyranny just > as easily as any other form of government. Suggesting draconian solutions > like banning modems for a certain age group smacks of the "well, it works, > so let's do it" mentality. "We are just giving up a LITTLE fairness - just > a LITTLE freedom." Bullshit. I'd rather have my stuff pirated. . . >>* DISK-COPY SOFTWARE: Why don't we just make programs like DiskCopy II, >> the DiskCloners, etc., etc., etc., **ILLEGAL**? > Once again, prior restraint. This is a rotten legal idea, and it does not > stand up well in court. Even aside from the (sorry to mention that incon- > venient document again) CONSTITUTIONAL issues. What is banning programs of > this sort if not censorship? Besides, banning the tools of crime has never > been popular in the US. That's why guns and crowbars are still legal (guns > most places and crowbars everywhere - what, you never heard of burglary? > Required equipment.) > Larry Smith > Apollo probably does not agree with me. That, too, is "real life". Please don't lump things like firearms, crowbars, and copy programs together with so-called 'tools of crime'. All of these items have legitimate uses (and in the case of firearms some heavy-handedly overlooked Constitutional pro- tection) that far outweigh their use by criminals. Granted that criminals use all of these (along with probably just about every other implement ever crea- ted) in the commission of various crimes, using the argument that 'banning the tools of crime is unpopular' as a reason for the continued legality of firearms is incorrect. Their continued legality is based on what little attention most lawmakers pay to the Second Amendment, the continuing lack of popularity for anti-gun laws in election years and when put to public vote, and the strong belief on the parts of millions of Americans that you " NEVER surrender ANY liberty for the sake of the security of a few" (I quote). Please be more care- ful in the analogies you make. With the exception of this one item, I greatly appreciated and strongly agreed with the rest of your posting. (And no, I'm not a member of the NRA) Richard Jordan DISCLAIMER: The stuff said above is my own stuff.