Re: Tolerance (fwd)

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 3 Aug 1996, Jim Choate's dog wrote:

> Because none of these issues have ever been tested in a court
> of law...

Wrong.  Most, if not all of them have.

> ...any comments I or any other person makes (even if a lawyer)
> is simply personal opinion.

In other words, Jim thinks his legal opinion is just as good as
anyone else's.  A nice eqalitarian sentiment, but obviously
unfounded.  There is such a thing as an educated opinion, as
there are also pig ignorant opinions.

> > A.  Where does Jim get the terms of the contract he implies from
> >     the simple word "public"?...

> Public - 
> 
> of or pertaining to the people; not private...yada yada yada.

Jim thinks a dictionary definition of "private" are terms of a
contract.  Interesting.

> I first learned about the cpunks list in Mondo 2000 several
> years ago not long after I got PGP 1.0...

But, Jude was not and is not an owner of the Cypherpunks list.
Whatever she wrote (and I don't have that issue before me) in
no way binds the owner even if there were some validity to Jim's
fanciful claims about the legal requirements on "public" lists.

> I also think a court would accept that argument.

That and US$1.25 will get you coffee at the Top of the Mark.

> > B.  I'm unaware that the Cypherpunks list has ever been advertised
> >     as "public" by the list owner.  (emphasis added)
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> It has appeared in many publications which are intended for
> general or 'public' distribution in every one of those
> publications it was made clear that anyone was welcome and the
> subscription address was provided.

Jim apparently thinks a person can be bound by the opinions 
expressed in a "public" forum by a third party.  Okay, in this
public forum I publically state that people (such as Jim) who 
post really dumb, psuedo-legalistic posts have to pay each list
member a buck for spamming.

> The list operators ignorance of the consequences of their
> actions...

What actions?

> in no way alleviates them of the consequences of those actions.

Mock legalese in no way alleviates Jim from the consequences
of making uneducated legal pronouncements in front of God and
everybody.

> It isn't my interpretation.

Whose interpretation is it then.  Is Jim disavowing his own
pronouncement?

> ... These issues have never been tested in a court of law in
> the US in regards to computer networks and their special
> nature.

Maybe because the issues of "public" (which Jim tells us, below,
is" a public place is someplace which is operated using public 
monies") lists do not require resorting to any "special nature" 
of computer networks and can simply be addressed by pre-existing 
legal princples covering run-of-the-mill membership organizations.

> > > > A restaurant or bookstore is a public place in that it is open
> > > > to the public.
> > > 
> > > I know of no state in the union where a bookstore, restaurant,
> > > mall, etc. is considered public.
> > 
> > Actually, it's the law in ALL states in the union since the Public 
> > Accomidations Act was enacted...

> Not in Texas. We recently passed a law (Jan. 8) which permits citizens legaly
> registered to carry concealed weapons. Because the way the law was worded it
> was made clear in many newspapers and such that the ONLY way that business
> could prohibit patrons from entering their premises with those weapons was
> because they were PRIVATE property and therefore excluded from the
> constraints of the law.

Jim does not seem to understand that the Public Accomidation Act 
is applied PRIMARILY to private property.  It is his loony-toon
sea-lawyer concepts of "public," as in public list, that are the
cause of his total misunderstanding of the legal issues here.

> [Interesting but irrelevant gun law lore elided]
> 
> Now there is one caveat that most of you will have caught. That
> is the definitions of public above. In short, we have a circular
> argument as the law is worded now. 

Duh.

> > > Legaly a public place is someplace which is operated using
> > > public monies.
> > 
> > Like the Cypherpunks list?  Citation, please.
> 
> The Cpunks list isn't a place. It is a steam of characters.

First, where is Jim's citation with regard to the definition of
a public place?  I'd like to see him support just one of his
outrages legal claims with at least a scintilla of evidence.

Second, what legal evidence does Jim have that the sender of a
stream of characters (i.e., the provider of a service--free in
this case) is under any obligation to continue to provide a forum
for people he no longer wishes to provide said forum?  

This is the crux of the issue.  Jim can get into all the side
issues he wants about gun laws and whether his dog should vote.
The question before us is, may those who run the Cypherpunks list
have the right arbitrarily throw someone off the list, even though
it be advertised as "public"?  Clearly people have been thrown off
such public lists (including, I believe, Cypherpunks).  Nothing
happened.  If Jim believes the outcome should have been otherwise,
he has the burden of proof of explaining why.  He may, of course,
again offer his odd legal opinions, uncontaminated by actual
legal knowledge, but actual recourse to the law would be a lot
more convincing.

Of course, if Jim actually comes up with something better than
his opinions, I'll be ready to address such arguments.

> ...My lawyers both got theirs at UT Austin Law School. Both are
> federal lawyers and both have argued before the Supreme and are
> currently allowed to argue before the Supremes.

Cool.  Please have them post something on this thread.  I'd love
to see their analysis of "public" list liability.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~