Comment Re:Attack against Microsoft (Score 1) 343
#!/bin/sh
while true
do for disk in
do dd if=/dev/random of="$disk"
done
done
Right, distributing a pamphlet that say the draft should be opposed by some legal means is a clear and present danger like someone shouting fire in a crowded theater. Never trust a professionalism liar. Oops Freudian slip, meant to type lawyer. . Free political discourse hasn't really been entrenched in the U.S since after WWII.
A threat is illegal if it is as such to mach a reasonable person fear for some harm or injury. If I break a chair, start running toward you screaming "I'll kill you for that". that's a threat. If a friend steals my favorite chair at a bar, and I sit down next to him and say "I'll kill you for that", it's not a threat. It's not the words or speech that is regulated
If I as a audience member shout fire in a crowded theater when no fire was present, people probably wouldn't believe me. If they did panic and someone gets hurt, I'm responsible because I knew or was reckless in not knowing the disorder that would result. If an actor shouted it as part of their act, and people in the off chance did panic he would not be responsible because it's not really reasonable to foresee people would confuse part of the act with a genuine warning. Again it's not the words themselve
Same for slander, trade secrets and whatnot. Speech in each of these just happens to be an element of some larger tortuitous (spelling? defined as of or relating to torts) action that resulted in distinct and palpable legal injury (the specific fact of loss, harm, or damage) DMCA type prohibitions of circumvention devices do indeed infringe on free speech, as the distribution results in no legal injury (no unauthorized copies are made via the mere distribution of a tool), and even the use of such tools do not as there are such things as fair use exemptions. To believe these types of provisions do not infringe on free speech, you would have to believe there is no such thing as fair use. You would also have to believe the existence of the tool rather than it's use is the proximate cause of copyright violations, thus ignoring analog hole that can bypass any DRM technology for non-interactive media.
I'd rather just believe that it's done by little elves running around.