[118622] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ISP port blocking practice
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Keith Medcalf)
Sat Oct 24 16:05:56 2009
Date: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:05:09 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4FxLTmHsMKRd.TVRTrj86@smtp.gmail.com>
From: "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> Free speech doesn't include the freedom to shout fire in a crowded theatr=
e.
It most certainly does! There is absolutely nothing to prevent one from sh=
outing "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. In fact, any attempt to legislate a pr=
ohibition against such behaviour would, in all civilized countries and lega=
l systems, constitute unlawful prior restraint.
You are confusing (as are all the myriad idiots who keep repeating this fic=
titious statement) prior restraint with positive law.
Nothing prevents you from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre (or anywhere=
else for that matter). However the proof of the FACT that you shouted "FI=
RE", and the proof of the FACT that this caused panic and injury, and proof=
of the FACT that the act of shouting "FIRE" caused pandemonium and injury =
will lead to a conviction for the offense of RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT or other=
offences against positive law.
It is not the shouting of "FIRE" in a crowded theatre that is unlawful, it =
is the reckless act and the reckless disregard for the consequences of that=
act which is criminal. In fact, if one were to shout "FIRE" in a crowded =
theatre and everyone simply ignored it, no offense would have been committe=
d at all!
Please keep your facts straight and do not abridge and summarize to the poi=
nt of absolute absurdity!
> Neither does it include the freedom to carry out a DDOS on the fire briga=
de control room.
This, of course, falls in the same category. You are totally free to DDoS =
the fire brigade control room. It is not illegal nor can such action be pr=
ohibited by positive law. It is however entirely possible that the consequ=
ence of such behaviour is perilous to property, life and limb; and that as =
a consequence the act itself becomes reckless endangerment ONLY AFTER IT HA=
S BEEN COMMITTED. There is not, and cannot be, any lawful prior restraint =
in this case either.
> You aren't allowed to levy a toll on the roads and except your mates - ro=
ads are neutral.
Of course you can, and governments do it all the time.
> But that doesn't invalidate the speed limit or the obligation to drive on=
the left.
Once again, you are confusing prior restraint with the consequence of doing=
an action. The Act itself cannot be prohibited. Their may be consequence=
s assigned to having proven that an act was done, but the doing of the act =
is not and cannot be prohibited.
Of course, both the United States and the UK have become Fascist states, an=
d as such it is reasonable to expect that they will behave like Fascists.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
