kyle.wbst@XEROX.ARPA (05/22/84)
What was the message that caused all this trouble?
CSTROM@Simtel20.ARPA (05/22/84)
Interesting that the originator of the message neglected to mention
the nature of the message or messages that caused such a reaction from
the {_California authorities. Needless to say, a lot of people are
asking this question and I am trying to determine same with no
response as yet.ABN.ISCAMS@Usc-Isid.ARPA (05/22/84)
Good grief! Don't put that message on this net! I don't want the local Ersatz Gestapo crashing in here and confiscating my terminal! (Not to mention them trying to haul away your lovely DEC-20!!) (Now if you'd like to slip me a bootleg copy -- assuming we don't run afoul of Federal Interstate Traffic laws...) David Kirschbaum Toad Hall
earl@Brl-Vat.ARPA (05/22/84)
From: Earl Weaver (VLD/ATB) <earl@Brl-Vat.ARPA> Public apathy is one of the reasons for the problem. Theoretically the government can only do what we allow it to do (that is, we, collectively). We are allowing the constitution to be virtually rewritten by the judicial branch of government by its "modern" interpretations of old laws. Frankly, I'm disturbed.
KYLE.WBST@XEROX.ARPA (05/23/84)
IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, I'M ALARMED. IT SEEMS WE HAVE A PRIORITY PROBLEM HERE. THE LOSS OF PUBLISHING BLUE BOX PLANS IS DOLLARS FROM MA BELL (OR WHAT EVER IT'S CALLED NOW). THE LOSS IN PUBLISHING PLANS TO A THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE IS THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE IF IT TRIGGERS WWIII. YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!
jsweet@Uci-750a.ARPA (05/23/84)
From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet@Uci-750a.ARPA> Refer to the November 1979 issue of The Progressive for a description of the construction of a thermonuclear device. It is not actually a "plan" per se. However, the description is probably adequate to permit construction by appropriately skilled persons. The problem would be to obtain sufficient fissile material. To be fair to the phone company, the analogous components for a blue box can be bought "off the shelf" as it were. However, I do not agree that the phone company (or congress, acting on its behalf) should be permitted to abridge first amendment rights any more than The Progressive should have been prevented from publishing its article (as it was not). -jns
jsweet@Uci-750a.ARPA (05/23/84)
From: Jerry Sweet <jsweet@Uci-750a.ARPA> While I will agree that the judicial branch has managed to reinterpret laws so as to decrease personal freedoms, you are mistaken in pointing the finger at the judiciary in this case. This appears to be a law designed specifically to protect the phone company. No interpretation by the judicial branch will be rendered until law is challenged. I'd be curious to know exactly which law was violated in this BBS case and what steps the sysop can take to recover his system. If this case were taken all the way to the supreme court, it could be ten years before the system is returned. There are still some kids here in Irvine whose systems are in the custody of the FBI, although to my knowledge these juveniles have yet to be formally charged with a crime--MONTHS and MONTHS after the fact. Gee, it never ceases to amaze me how easily democracy is eroded by the forces of apathy, bureaucracy, and ignorance. -jns
steve@Brl-Bmd.ARPA (05/24/84)
From: Stephen Wolff <steve@Brl-Bmd.ARPA> >> However, I do not agree that the phone >> company (or congress, acting on its behalf) should be permitted to >> abridge first amendment rights any more than The Progressive should >> have been prevented from publishing its article (as it was not). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, yes it was! Morland's article was originally scheduled for the April, '79 issue, but on March 26 Federal judge Robert W. Warren "..did what no Federal judge had ever done before in the 203-year history of the American republic" when he issued a preliminary injunction barring publication, and had all copies of the article, its proofs, sketches &c. locked up. Sanity did not prevail until September 28, when the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Warren's incredible injunction. The article was printed in November. The Progressive was, in fact "prevented" from printing it (by Warren's injunction) for more than six months. A last note: While this was only a minor random aberration on the Government's part, nearly five years later The Progressive is still struggling to get out of debt from the costs it incurred in defending the first amendment to the Constitution.