🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5416@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, James Moore
(jmm@thoth16.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU) writes:

> . . .

> Even more important is that I have the right to say whatever
> I want to to whomever I wish without any hint of government interference.

A novel idea!  Not one that is supported by the Constitution or the law,
however. . .

You do not have the right to say or print falsehoods about others
("slander" and "libel," respectively).  You do not have the right to
falsely shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  You do not have the right
to tell your employer's competitor the details of your employer's trade
secrets (theft of trade secrets).  You do not have the right to say, "I'm
gonna kill the President!"  You do not have the right to divulge the
contents of radio broadcasts unless they were intended for a general
audience (Communications Act of 1939).

Nor do you have the right to divulge classified material to an
unauthorized person.  Remember the Pollard case (he and his wife were
spying for Israel)?  That was only a few months ago.  Within the past
year, a case was broken in which several Navy men were spying for the
Soviets.  And there was another case in which a naturalized man of
Chinese ancestry was spying for Red China (he committed suicide in
his jail cell, as I recall).  Each of these people were arrested
(and in most cases, convicted) of saying whatever they wanted to
(classified material) to whomever they wished (foreign governments).

You most emphatically do *not* "have the right to say whatever [you]
want to to whomever [you] wish without any hint of government
interference."  *Most* of your speech is indeed thus protected.  But
not all!!!

> The government doesn't have the right to open my mail inside
> the US without a search warrant, and as far as I'm concerned
> they don't have the right to open it outside of the United States.
> . . .

Please note that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue in the past
and does not agree with you.

>                                             . . .  Any other
> course of action (such as reading all encrypted material on the
> basis that it _might_ be illegal) is unconstitutional.

Again, this is your interpretation of the Constitution.  However, the
Founding Fathers specified that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter
of such questions.  (Note that having Congress outlaw such activities
merely makes them illegal -- not unconstitutional.  A later Congress
could reverse itself with no basis for interference from the Supreme
Court.)  As of this date your views are not those of the Court.

In summary, such activities *are* Constitutional, and will continue to
be so until the Court reverses itself, or a Constitutional amendment is
passed which specifically outlaws that which you abhor.

					Steve Rice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
new: stever@videovax.tv.Tek.com
old: {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver | cae780}!tektronix!videovax!stever