CDR "Educating" the Defense about Cypherpunks

[Seth Finkelstein]

Tim May wrote:
> Trying to "explain" the Cypherpunk ideology and outlook (such as it
> is), is not likely to be helpful. Not that John's or Declan's or
> anyone else's job is to help Bell in his defense. Bell chose his path.

	In a way, part of the above message is a proof of some of my
thoughts. I didn't suggest that the defense attorney try to preach to
the court. My suggestion was it would be helpful to a fair trial for
him to understand some of the background. Because (from what I read), he
seemed to be very much at sea with what he's been given. I could be
wrong, but it was merely a private suggestion to someone who seemed
very concerned about the case (sorry John, not trying to tar you). To
ordinary people, this might even be stating the obvious.

	That was immediately converted into the idea that it was a
suggestion that the defense attorney should rant at the court. Which
is very revealing about the "ideology and outlook".

> Anyone think this would be useful?:
>
> "Your Honor, I was given a lengthy briefing by members of the list,
> given copies of their posts and their manifestos. I now understand
> them. I now understand why Jim Bell is advocating the
> assassination-by-lottery of judges and prosecutors. Fuck the State,
> Man!"
>
> Useful? Didn't think so.

	It wouldn't be useful to say that to the court. But in
fact, if the defense attorney DOES NOT understand the background,
it seemed it might help for him to know it.

	You say: "... Bell does not represent my views--and vice
versa." While it's an overstatement to say that Bell REPRESENTS your
views, I'd say it's extremely useful to understand those views of yours.
The number of times you, personally, have talked about who "needs killing",
is amazing. In fact, "needs killing" is virtually a running joke.

	Thus my take on some of this, is that there's an aspect of
"It's all fun and games, until someone's eye gets put out" (or someone
takes it too far, and gets arrested). Now, I know the automatic flame
in response to this. Does that mean you, or anyone else, are
responsible for what Jim Bell did? Not at all. However, if someone is
the defense attorney, it sure can be useful to understand some of
Bell's bombastic statements in the context of the violent rhetoric
whichs acts like an "Amen" sometimes. That's "understand", not
"consider responsible for", got it?

	As to "Assassination Politics", many people get way too
focused on the technical details in relation to the case. If Bell's
overall actions are examined, it look a lot like he's soliciting
murder of Federal agents. Maybe his implementation wouldn't be
anonymous, and wouldn't pay off. Hypothetically, trying to soliciting
murder anonymously and failing, and not paying, aren't mitigating to
the crime involved.

	I suppose, given the tenor of the times, I should state that
I've never met Jim Bell, never had any contact with him (personal or
e-mail), and don't want any. Nor, for what it's worth, am I an agent
of the Federal government, nor connected with the prosecution in any way,
shape or form, nor have any interest there. I did feel some sympathy
for the defense attorney Robert Leen when reading some messages. Oh,
and I go way back with Declan McCullagh, I can't deny that.

__
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf at mit.edu  http://sethf.com