Re: pornography & the ``cypherpunk cause''

[Edward Elhauge <ee@lever.com>]

In message <9310131248.AA27665@vail.tivoli.com>, Mike McNally writes:
>Think of it this way.  If I'm tooling down the Interstate at 75 and my
>passenger says
>	Though ultimately you will have to make this decision for
>	yourself, because in your capacity as driver of this motor
>	vehicle you are solely responsible for adherence to state
>	and local traffic ordinances, you should be aware that an
>	official affiliated with a law enforcement organization is
>	at this moment using a speed measurement device from his
>	vehicle parked ahead of us behind a bush, and that there
>	may be legal ramifications to his detection of your current
>	speed.
>I'd be like real pissed off while the ticket was being written.  If,
>on the other hand, my companion said
>	TROOPER! SLOW DOWN!

A counter-example might be:
	1) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. As per California law
there is a REBUTABLE PRESUMPTION (embedded in statutory law) that my life is
in danger and that deadly force is justified. Consequently, my response to the
situation is ruled justifiable homicide.
	2) Someone breaks down my door while I am eating. A feeble minded guest
of mine shouts out "I don't think he's armed." Consequently, the police find
that the man is either not armed or had a water pistol. I might do 5-10 for
manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.

Your example doesn't involve a law that requires knowledge or a state of mind
to be guilty. Laws about the transport of illegal information do!
--
  Edward Elhauge  |  "The only thing worse than being talked about
 Lever Industries |   is not being talked about."
   San Francisco  |              -- Oscar Wilde
   ee@lever.com   |