[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GAK boycott, What are legal implications?
On Thu, 21 Dec 1995, Paul Elliott wrote:
Gee, being legally responsible for lost revenue over a boycott. Rev. Donald
Wilmond is going to be very broke! I don't know anything about the NAACP
case, but it seems to me that free speech & merely *urging* people to
boycott would be a perfect defense.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Here is a question for all of you cyber legal types out there.
> This question presupposes:
>
> The NIST will complete its work on the GAK standard. But no law will be
> passed (yet) regulating the use of encryption in the U. S. (The GAK standard
> is an attempt to create an environment in which such laws can be passed.)
> In the U.S., Big Company INC will start marketing a GAKed encryption
> product domesticly.
>
> A bunch of cypherpunkish types will immediately try to organize a boycott
> against BIG COMPANY.
>
> What are the cypherpunks legal risks?
>
> I seem to remember that back in the 70s, the NAACP lost a big case
> with respect to their boycott in a southern city. As I recall there were people
> in the street begging money for the NAACP because there was a > 10**6 $
> judgement against the NAACP and they needed that much just to appeal.
>
>
> - --
> Paul Elliott Telephone: 1-713-781-4543
> [email protected] Address: 3987 South Gessner #224
> Houston Texas 77063
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBMNnJ8/BUQYbUhJh5AQGbsgP/T0n31SqeuHt+7AbizymcEhu/78DUuym5
> sj+MO3ruA9WcEBQUXfabuf/PgOwlrtUAcC3dISPvXwGbdygc9oHBfxSglLi48g7d
> dvDS4wziRHF7N8sBsYn0ee9YyKhPd9U7Ci0ovOc5frFGSZ2Bt4hU703d7bR+6cB+
> iHHqsPaAa6o=
> =EPoj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Robert A. Jacoby (speaking only for myself--not legal advice)
Assistant Law Librarian for LAN/Reference
George Mason University Law Library
(703) 993-8107
[email protected]