[IP] more on Cry wolf, get reaction (was Create an e-annoyance, go to jail)

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: David Mercer <radix42@gmail.com>
Date: January 13, 2006 12:08:40 PM EST
To: dave@farber.net
Subject: Re: [IP] Cry wolf, get reaction (was Create an e-annoyance,  
go to jail)

On 1/10/06, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com>
> Date: January 10, 2006 11:56:50 AM EST
> To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>, ip@v2.listbox.com
> Cc: "Lin, Herb" <HLin@nas.edu>, dpreed@reed.com, ghicks@well.com,
> jwarren@well.com
> Subject: Cry wolf, get reaction (was Create an e-annoyance, go to  
> jail)
>
> [ http://volokh.com/posts/1136873535.shtml ]
>
> [Orin Kerr, January 10, 2006 at 1:12am]
> A Skeptical Look at "Create an E-annoyance, Go to Jail":
>
> Declan McCullagh has penned a column that is custom-designed to race
> around the blogosphere. It begins:

**snip long legal explaination**

>    Now I suppose you can criticize Congress for being lazy. They
>    haven't rewritten the old 1934 statute in light of the modern First
>    Amendment, and that has resulted in a criminal statute that looks
>    much broader than it actually is. The new law expands the
>    preexisting law by amending the definition of "telecommunications
>    device," which maintains the same gap between the law on the books
>    and the law in practice. The formulation is a bit awkward. But the
>    key point for our purposes is that the law is not the "ridiculous"
>    provision Declan imagines. It looks funny if you don't know the
>    relevant caselaw, but in practice it simply takes the telephone
>    harassment statute we've had for decades and applies it to the
>    Internet.

No, this is all about Congress making whatever laws they want, totally
without regard for the Constitution, and seeing what sticks.  And of
course the legal and political establishment making it nearly
impossible for the man on the street to ever figure out the meaning of
the law without, at the very least, a legal degree.

And even then one almost has to be a specialist in the area under
question, and read tons and tons of caselaw going back decades.
"Plain meaning" has completely flown out the window, lo these many
decades.  The words on the page never seem to mean what the text would
lead one to believe, at least not those with merely a grasp of the
english language, even at the college level.

Great way to maintain unelected power elites, isn't it?

For IP of course, if you wish.

-David Mercer
Tucson, AZ


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/