At 6:10 PM -0700 7/21/00, Ernest Hua wrote:
> > I don't think that information about addresses
>> automagically becomes violent (or even not so
>> violent) action.
>>
>> There's a difference between espousing violence
>> and not caring, just as there's a difference
>> between apathy and pacifism.
>
>There is also such things as wreckless
>endangerment which I believe is close to being
>achieved by publishing the home address of someone
>who is definitely doing something which pisses off
>certain more aggressive portions of the
>population.
"Reckess endangerment," like "public nuisance" and "to save the
children," are catch-phrases for unconstitutional restrictions on the
right to speak, publish, gather, hold arms, attend religious
services, and be secure in one's papers and possessions.
Hard to believe that Ernest Hua, though not seen here in recent
months, has returned with a vengeance, spouting nonsense about how
speech is "reckless endangerment."
Earth to Ern: Once those names became public, as they should have
been, Anonymous needed only access to online information services to
do the rest. Any $50 an hour P.I. ex-cop is able to do far more with
less. And so this applies to those intent on TPing or otherwise
harassing those two Feebies.
Get real, and stop blithering about "reckless endangerment" and the
PC nonsense of claiming that because someone doesn't condemn a
possible future action by another they are somehow culpable...this is
magical thinking at its worst.
[rest of statist blather deleted without further comment]
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
