Re: My Blind Spot - Patriot Act II

From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Mon Mar 24 2003 - 10:54:04 MST

  • Next message: Nathanael Allison: "RE: [IRAQ]:Human Nature"

    Mike Lorrey wrote:

    >--- Charles Hixson <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Mike Lorrey wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> ...
    >
    >A responsible citizen should be aware of the laws in their
    >jurisdiction. While there are many small statutory violations which it
    >is difficult to avoid these days, such are not generally felonies.
    >Whistling and chewing gum at the same time may get you a citation in
    >some communities (not kidding), but such generally are not felonies.
    >...
    >
    Have you *EVER* seen a complete list of the laws? I haven't. I do know
    that the DMCA by itself was over 2000 pages long. (Or perhaps that was
    the UCTIA 2b [renamed].). I've seen a library of the texts of important
    contract laws of the state of California. Library is the word. And
    everytime a voters pamplet comes out, I try to figure out what the
    things they want to pass really mean. I estimate my reading time for
    law as about an hour per page. (That's more than I actually invest, but
    I don't always end up understanding what I've read.)

    And you say I should be aware of all of these laws! Not only would I
    not have time to do anything else, I wouldn't have time to eat or sleep,
    either. You might assert that "well, you only need to read the
    important laws", but those aren't the only felonies. Conspiracy to
    comit a misdeameanor, e.g., is a felony. So if you are planning to do
    something that violates any minor law (well, not ordinances... I think
    that's a separate category), then you are comitting a felony, and so
    this restriction referred to comes into play.

    Now normally I would agree that these laws are not enforced. But they
    are on the books, and they have been enforced when the powers that be
    wanted to *get* someone. A valid defense is random enforcement, but
    that's a tough argument, and an expensive argument, and if they are
    holding you without a lawyer (as per recent laws), then you can't even
    make it. Even when the defense is allowed, and is successful, the
    objective of "getting that person away from here" is normally achieved,
    and the costs of defending themselves is generally an adequate deterrent
    against repetition. Unless you are VERY wealthy, in which case they
    wouldn't bother you anyway. These laws are directed at letting the
    government cut off whatever behavior, however legal, it chooses to.
    Like "peacably assembling to petition the government for redress of
    wrongs" (I probably garbled the quote, but not the essential meaning).

    -- 
    -- Charles Hixson
    Gnu software that is free,
    The best is yet to be.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 24 2003 - 11:05:30 MST