Re: The Grand Compromise is Coming

[lucifer@dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer)]

Tim May wrote:

> And, as many of us have noted, what is there to compromise about? If one
> has religious freedom, for example, and a series of laws are proposed or
> passed to limit this religious freedom in some way, what kind of compromise
> is even remotely acceptable?

  I would wager that the number of drug dealers who own Bibles is much
greater than the number who own strong crypto. Why is there no proposed
legislation regarding use of the Bible in commission of a crime?
 
> (By the way, I have no heard no good counters to my point that the "use of
> crypto in furtherance of a crime" is quite analogous to "freedom of
> religion shall not be abridged, but saying a heathen prayer in furtherance
> of a crime shall subject the heathen to an additional five years of
> imprisonment." This is why I think the "use of a special language or
> whispering in furtherance of a crime" provisions of SAFE will probably be
> struck down by the Supremes, unless they, too, have forgotten what the
> Constitution is all about.)

  Ebonics has to be a natural candidate for pleading this to the
Supremes. Ebonics means that a black arrested by a white undercover
officer would get an extra five years over the sentence of a black
arrested by a 'brother'.
  How about five years for calling a drug "Mary Jane" when writing
it down, four years for "marijuana", three and a half years for
"marihuana" and six months for "Cannibus Sativa." Calling it
simply "Killer shit, man!" would be acceptable.

  Double jeapordy is a fact of life these days with the plethora of
"commission of a crime during the commission of a crime" laws and
the "conspiracy to commit the crime which was committed" laws, as
well, I presume, as coming "intention to conspire to commit what
later became a crime" laws.
  Expansion of concepts beyond their originally intended boundaries
works both ways, however, as when the citizen finally decides to
regard "Do you support the overthrow of the government by (1)force
or (2)violence?" as a multiple-choice question.
  {As a matter of fact, that would make a damn fine "poll" to put
before the American people.}

The North Poll
> The First Amendment is all we need to speak in the language of our
> choosing, including the languages of whispers, Talegu, Navajo, pig latin,
> coded signals, and 4000-bit RSA.
> 
> We don't need any "reaffirmations" of this basic right, at least not from
> Congress.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
> Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."