In a message dated 5/5/2007 11:05:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
I would disagree here. Avoidance of activities that are illegal is something we should avoid period. It is irrelevant whether we will face legal troubles, or even whether the law is stupid. We have a responsibility to follow it.
Danny
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 5/5/2007 11:05:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, delirium@hackish.org writes:
Excessive avoidance of activities that are not likely to result in legal troubles, but which some people irrationally fear might, is pretty much the definition of "chilling effects" style paranoia.
I would disagree here. Avoidance of activities that are illegal is something we should avoid period. It is irrelevant whether we will face legal troubles, or even whether the law is stupid. We have a responsibility to follow it.
But in this case it is extremely unclear what the law *is*, to the point where the law is effectively defined by the interpretations given in court rulings. Therefore whether what we're doing is illegal is pretty much equivalent to whether we're likely to ever lose a court case over it: I would say the answer to both questions is, with high confidence, "no". In any case, your original message explicitly warned of dire consequences for the Foundation in losing lawsuits; you didn't make an abstract moral argument about following the law, which is quite another thing.
-Mark