[comp.org.eff.talk] Growing MJ

stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) (06/05/91)

In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes:

[...]

      So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 

   David Barberi

One big difference is that the contents of electronic media sometimes
looks like print and sometimes looks like speech.  And since which it
is often depends on "tricky details" like context, the legal system
seems to have decided to punt on the issue for now and afford it
neither set of protections.

--
--Scott Stanton     (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)   
--

dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) (06/05/91)

>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes...
>>alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:
>>  In many bookstores, one can buy
>>books that (1) recommend marijuana growth and use, (2) describe
>>how to grow hemp indoors and outdoors, and (3) how to best avoid
>>getting caught.
>
>As the PHREAK trials have shown there is a difference between printed media
>and electronic media. Though one can also look up some scientific periodicals
>(Botanical Gazette comes to mind) and find article about growing it.

   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Barberi             |  "Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation!"   |
Syracuse University       |--------------------------------------------------|
S.I. Newhouse School of   |  Bitnet: Dbarberi@SUNRISE                        |
Public Communications     |  Internet: Dbarberi@Rodan.acs.syr.edu            | 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/05/91)

In <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes:
>>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes...
>>>alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:
>>>  In many bookstores, one can buy
>>>books that (1) recommend marijuana growth and use, (2) describe
>>>how to grow hemp indoors and outdoors, and (3) how to best avoid
>>>getting caught.
>>As the PHREAK trials have shown there is a difference between printed media
>>and electronic media. Though one can also look up some scientific periodicals
>>(Botanical Gazette comes to mind) and find article about growing it.
>   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 

	There isn't one.  But the politicos are trying very hard to
	pretend there is, so they can try - again - to pass laws
	which aim to reducing rights and freedoms.  They were stopped
	when they tried it with print media, but now they are taking
	advantage of the general ignorance and apathy to pull the wool
	over our eyes.

>David Barberi
-- 
William "Alain" Simon
                                                   UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP

zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (06/06/91)

In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes:
>
>   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
>
	Idiot juries, judges, and lawyers understand print media, and they
do not understand electronic media.

-- 
The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM

mx8@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (06/06/91)

   There is a distinction to be made between factual/scientific information and 
encouraging drug use.  The thing about electronic media is that it is so easy
to combine the two.  A post is extremely free-form.  The regular rules of
grammatical structure and organization do not apply.  So electronic information
is neither printed nor spoken in nature - it is more or less a hybrid of the
two.

    In any event, communication is communication and any attempt to regulate it 
to an unreasonable extent is akin to censorship in any other context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               -
         Eric Beyer, Cornell University        -   "It was like that when I
         <MX8@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>            -        got there!"
                                               -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

revpk@cellar.UUCP (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) (06/06/91)

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:

> In <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I wi
> >>turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes...
> >>>alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:
> >>>  In many bookstores, one can buy
> >>>books that (1) recommend marijuana growth and use, (2) describe
> >>>how to grow hemp indoors and outdoors, and (3) how to best avoid
> >>>getting caught.
> >>As the PHREAK trials have shown there is a difference between printed media
> >>and electronic media. Though one can also look up some scientific periodica
> >>(Botanical Gazette comes to mind) and find article about growing it.
> >   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
> 
> 	There isn't one.  But the politicos are trying very hard to
> 	pretend there is, so they can try - again - to pass laws
> 	which aim to reducing rights and freedoms.  They were stopped
> 	when they tried it with print media, but now they are taking
> 	advantage of the general ignorance and apathy to pull the wool
> 	over our eyes.
> 
> >David Barberi
> -- 
> William "Alain" Simon
>                                                    UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP

        Precisely-- in fact, these days, most print media is in electronic 
form at one point or another. I imagine that most people would raise a hue 
and cry if the _New York Times's_ data files were confiscated by the 
government, because to most people, the _Times_ is a better example of the 
Press to be kept free than, say, the arcane and technical world of Usenet.


======================================================================
Brian Siano, aka      [ "Mr. A. Hitler, the old Nazi thing, says      
                      [ Mickey's silly. Imagine that! Well, Mickey is 
Rev. Philosopher-King [ going to save Mr. A. Hitler from drowning or  
                      [ something some day. Just wait and see if he   
 revpk@cellar.UUCP    [ doesn't. Then won't Mr. A. Hitler be ashamed!"
                      [ -- Walt Disney, 1933.                         
======================================================================

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/07/91)

In <STANTON.91Jun4142432@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) writes:
>In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes:
>[...]
>      So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
>One big difference is that the contents of electronic media sometimes
>looks like print and sometimes looks like speech.  And since which it
>is often depends on "tricky details" like context, the legal system
>seems to have decided to punt on the issue for now and afford it
>neither set of protections.

	Interesting point that leads to the next questions:

	Why should there be a distinction between speech
	and the printed word?  Isn't it an artificial split?
	Does it correspond to an objective difference?

>--Scott Stanton     (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)   
-- 
William "Alain" Simon
                                                   UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/07/91)

In <1991Jun05.183440.29680@ddsw1.MCS.COM> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
>In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes:
>>   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
>	Idiot juries, judges, and lawyers understand print media, and they
>do not understand electronic media.

	Let's begin by making sure WE understand, then we can
	TELL THEM.  After, wish tomorrow good luck.

> zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
-- 
William "Alain" Simon
                                                   UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP

brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) (06/07/91)

In article <1991Jun5.185620.5275@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> mx8@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes:
>A post is extremely free-form.

Not at all.  Most posts are tubular in nature, with the long dimension
several times longer than the diameter of the tube.  They are usually
straight, although some irregular curvature can be expected in those made 
of natural materials such as tree trunks.

Oh, you meant "posting", as in news article posted to usenet?

Never mind.
	- Brian

stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) (06/11/91)

In article <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:

           Interesting point that leads to the next questions:

           Why should there be a distinction between speech
           and the printed word?  Isn't it an artificial split?
           Does it correspond to an objective difference?

   William "Alain" Simon                           UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP


The distinction is more between "press" and "speech".  I think it
originally was a valid distinction since the printed word had a much
greater reach than the spoken word.  Even today, the press often has a
greater perceived validity than speech.  But I'm not sure the
distinction is as easy to make now that we have radio, tv,
audio-visual recordings, and most recently, electronic mail and
bulletin boards.  Now that desktop publishing makes "press" just as
easy as "speech", there may not be as much difference.

One problem with trying to unify the two concepts, though, is that
they are afforded different protections under the law now.  Not being
a lawyer, I don't know what all of the distinctions are, but I believe
there is a higher standard of truth required of the press.  It also
gets particularly tricky when you start adding in copyright laws.  If
I copy your entire message without your prior permission, is that a
copyright violation?  It certainly isn't if it is considered to be
speech, but it might well be under the printed word umbrella.


--
--Scott Stanton     (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)   
--

mrmu@leland.Stanford.EDU (Marianne Mueller) (06/11/91)

|> >>As the PHREAK trials have shown there is a difference between printed media
|> >>and electronic media. Though one can also look up some scientific periodicals
|> >>(Botanical Gazette comes to mind) and find article about growing it.
|> >   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
|> 
|> 	There isn't one.  But the politicos are trying very hard to
|> 	pretend there is, so they can try - again - to pass laws
|> 	which aim to reducing rights and freedoms. 

I dunno, I think there are many differences between print and electronic media.
Electronic media is much more democratic and could be made available to everyone,
cheaply.  The same isn't true of newspapers and book publishing houses.  (the press is 
free to those who can afford one etc)

In terms of the first amendment, sure, in that sense print and electronic media
share protection.   (radical idea: make the bill of rights Law.)   

Electronic media is more malleable - that's why I object to Lotus Marketplace
on a CD but I object less to my local merchant trying to be clever and canvass
my neighborhood.  It's cheap and easy for someone to search a CD loaded with
personal private info - I don't think it's cheap and easy to similarly search 
a 12-inch stack of paper that contains the same information, and so probably 
no one does it.  Now maybe I'm just exposing my ignorance of the direct
marketing industry here.      Has anyone done a study of intrusive marketing
campaigns?  I haven't been hit by anything other than the crudest marketing, 
but then I've never bought a house (maybe that's the purchase that pushes 
a consumer into the Targeted Group.)  I imagine that with something like
Lotus' CD, intrusive tactics become the norm.  

mauler@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (06/11/91)

In article <1991Jun05.183440.29680@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) writes:
> In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.edu (I will *not* justify my actions) writes:
>>
>>   So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
>>
> 	Idiot juries, judges, and lawyers understand print media, and they
> do not understand electronic media.
> 

Since they do not understand it, they treat it as the worst possible case for
either printed text or speech (i.e., whatever you're being charged with using
the electronic media as evidence just got ten times worse).

Either that, or they throw it out of court since it can be easily changed. 
Throwing it out usually only occurs when it is evidence in your favor...

> -- 
> The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
> 
> 

rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) (06/12/91)

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:

> In <STANTON.91Jun4142432@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scot
> >In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.
> >[...]
> >      So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
> >One big difference is that the contents of electronic media sometimes
> >looks like print and sometimes looks like speech.  And since which it
> >is often depends on "tricky details" like context, the legal system
> >seems to have decided to punt on the issue for now and afford it
> >neither set of protections.
> 
> 	Interesting point that leads to the next questions:
> 
> 	Why should there be a distinction between speech
> 	and the printed word?  Isn't it an artificial split?
> 	Does it correspond to an objective difference?
> 
> >--Scott Stanton     (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)   
> -- 
> William "Alain" Simon
>                                                    UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP

[Sorry for leaving in the entirety of those two, but...]

The main difference between speech and print is not in protection, but in 
proof.  The distinctions between slander and libel are not simply the fact 
that one is spoken and the other written: in a slander case, the alleged 
defamation must be verified by witnesses; in a libel case, the written 
document stands as evidence.

Electronic media can have the relative permanency of printed matter by being 
saved on disk, much as speech can be preserved on tape.  Tape recordings, 
however, are often barred from court proceedings depending how the taped 
evidence was obtained.  Computer files are more volatile and malleable than 
print and audio - Anyone may design a file that looks genuine but is actually 
corrupt.

Thus, any case involving electronic documents furnished as proof should be 
subject to corroboration and analysis.  If someone alleges libel against a 
user on a bulletin board, for example, the evidence presented by both parties 
could be different, even though they are allegedly the same post/article.  
One copy of an electronic document (even if it has been printed) should not 
be considered sufficient evidence.

Rachel K. McGregor            : Let the fire be your friend : Call the
a/k/a Rogue Winter            : And the sea rock you gently : Cellar at
rogue@cellar.uucp             : Let the moon light your way : 215/336-9503
{tredysvr,uunet}!cellar!rogue : 'Til the wind sets you free : BBS & Usenet

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/12/91)

In <STANTON.91Jun10132339@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) writes:
>In article <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:
>           Why should there be a distinction between speech
>           and the printed word?  Isn't it an artificial split?
>           Does it correspond to an objective difference?
>The distinction is more between "press" and "speech".  I think it
>originally was a valid distinction since the printed word had a much
>greater reach than the spoken word.  Even today, the press often has a
>greater perceived validity than speech.  But I'm not sure the
>distinction is as easy to make now that we have radio, tv,
>audio-visual recordings, and most recently, electronic mail and
>bulletin boards.  Now that desktop publishing makes "press" just as
>easy as "speech", there may not be as much difference.

	And if you have indulged in a bit of NeXT-Mail or explored
	virtual universes, then the fine line simply disappears.

>--Scott Stanton     (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)   
-- 
William "Alain" Simon
                                                   UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP

stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) (06/13/91)

In article <0wFe44w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes:

   Electronic media can have the relative permanency of printed matter by being 
   saved on disk, much as speech can be preserved on tape.  Tape recordings, 
   however, are often barred from court proceedings depending how the taped 
   evidence was obtained.  Computer files are more volatile and malleable than 
   print and audio - Anyone may design a file that looks genuine but
   is actually corrupt.

An important distinction between audio tape and electronic media is
that the audio tape is barred as evidence not because it is unreliable
or suspect, but rather because it was obtained by methods the court
wishes to discourage.  Unlike an audio recording which requires
considerable effort to forge, an unencrypted electronic document is
trivial to forge given currently available technology.

   Thus, any case involving electronic documents furnished as proof should be 
   subject to corroboration and analysis.  If someone alleges libel against a 
   user on a bulletin board, for example, the evidence presented by both parties 
   could be different, even though they are allegedly the same post/article.  
   One copy of an electronic document (even if it has been printed) should not 
   be considered sufficient evidence.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here, but I would take it further.  I
would want there to be some proof beyond a simple account id on the
message that the article did in fact originate from the defendant.
And I would also like to see laws akin to the wiretapping prohibitions
that would rule inadmissable electronic evidence secured improperly
(e.g. by hacking a user's password and looking at their private
email).

   Rachel K. McGregor



--
--Scott Stanton     (stanton@cs.stanford.edu)   
--

alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) (06/14/91)

In <0wFe44w164w@cellar.UUCP> rogue@cellar.UUCP (Rache McGregor) writes:
>alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes:
>>In <STANTON.91Jun4142432@lurch.stanford.edu> stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scot
>>>In article <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> dbarberi@rodan.acs.syr.
>>>[...]
>>>      So what IS the difference between printed media and electronic media? 
>>>[ ... ]
>> 	Why should there be a distinction between speech
>>[ ... ]
>The main difference between speech and print is not in protection, but in 
>proof.  The distinctions between slander and libel are not simply the fact 
>that one is spoken and the other written: in a slander case, the alleged 
>defamation must be verified by witnesses; in a libel case, the written 
>document stands as evidence.

	No dispute with what you are saying.  Print has force of
	authenticity.  Speech and electronic media don't.  But
	this is not a reason to differentiate between the two
	when it comes to giving them protection under the law.

>Rachel K. McGregor
-- 
William "Alain" Simon
                                                   UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP