Ok, I sent the following th john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov. Not sure the address is valid though, as his homepage isn't.
(This is an open letter.)
Dear Sir,
I believe that it is extremely important that drug use be curtailed in this country. Methamphetamine use, from what I hear, is extremely addictive, in addition to being very easy and cheap for people to make at home. Drug use is very, very harmful to society.
However, I do not believe that harsher controls are the answer. Especially if those controls have the potential of violating our fourth and first amenndment rights. As citizens, we have the right to say what we like, and that includes, I believe, being allowed to provide instructions on the formulation of drugs. We have the right to provide that information on the internet, and we have the right to link to such sites. A person should not be punishable for merely writing an article or telling someone where to find such an article. The same goes for software - a person should not be punishable for merely providing links to the DeCSS program.
Our fourth amendment rights are, in this case, perhaps even more important. The right of people to not be searched without warrants is extremely important. Even if there is a possibility of a person being guilty of having drugs in their posession, the government should not be able to search their property without a warrant. I am very concerned that innocent people suffer the effects of anti-drug legislation. Here's a quote from an article on Slashdot, a prominent "Geek" news site, in response to an article of mine defending you as George W. Bush's choice for Attorney General:
"There are many issues being used to discredit President-Elect Bush's nominee for Attorney General, John Ashcroft, but one we haven't heard is The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which Ashcroft authored. It would have allowed the police the authority to conduct secret warrantless searches. If this bill had passed, Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies would be able to to enter private property - e.g., homes, businesses, automobiles - to conduct criminal searches without a warrant and without any legal obligation to inform the private property owner that a search and seizure was conducted until months later, if at all."
I think this flies in the face of the traditional Conservative model of smaller government, more rights for the people, and invividual responsibility. Please reconsider your ideas on drug prevention.
No, I'm serious. We value our freedom to pray, freedom to homeschool, freedom to express our faith, freedom to meet peacably to study the Bible, freedom to take a day of the week off of work, etc. And maybe I'm talking about a certain brand of right-wingers you aren't familiar with. Most geeks here would agree with most right-wingers, and disagree with the ACLU, on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms.
I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to kill someone without just provocation and get away with it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to perfom an abortion, even if I was a doctor, and get away with it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to look lustfully at pornography and get away with it, or post pornography for others to look lustfully at it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to sleep with or rape another man's wife and get away with it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to look lustfully at another person of the same gender. There's a lot of things I don't want to do and I don't want others to do. Because they are wrong, and they hurt society. And it's perfectly within the law to try to prevent people from doing these things. Require them not to? Well, it sure would be nice if that wasn't necessary, wouldn't it? Whether it's legal for the government to require them not to is open to debate.
"Anyway, my point is that if you really want to help the cause, educate the people."
I agree totally. That's why I think Dubya will make a good president - because he believes in the people, and their power to govern themselves. That's why he, and John Ashcroft, don't plan on overturning Roe vs. Wade and banning abortion - not because abortion is acceptible, but because it's the people that need to decide whether it is or not. That's the reason the prohibition didn't work - because people didn't see the problem with drinking and the government tried to force it upon them. That's why I'm hoping for a smaller government and a more informed, values-oriented populace, to compensate. As geeks, it's our duty to explain to people and try to educate them on these issues.
Remember, the values that people try to force upon others are not necessarily wrong, it's just annoying to have them forced upon you. Be sure and evaluate things on their real merits before deciding based upon how you feel. A lot of people decide to buy stereos, tvs, music cds, Windoze, etc. just for entertainment's sake and because it feels good. If they would only stop and think, and if they were a bit more educated on the issues, they might realize what it's going to support.
Nonetheless, laws are necessary to preserve our freedoms and safety. Neither a draconian justice system nor a permissive one serves the people best. The ACLU focuses way too much, I think, upon making the justice system more permissive. An adequate justice system is vital to our peace and safety, just as it is vital that it not over-step it's bounds. All right-wing, Christian organizations that I know of are very pro-freedom. We want a smaller government, as well as a more orderly society that can rule itself. Harsher penalties for harsh crimes, it is felt, will make people think twice about commiting them. The point of emphasis of these right-wing groups is probably one you'd agree with - we don't commit these crimes and we wish noone else would. It's just as much to the potential criminal's benefit as to the innocent potential victim that the crime be prevented. My opinion is, we need to get the justice system in shape. It's waay too complicated for the average individual to deal with. Make the laws simpler, more available, and easier to understand. Understanding of the law should not be restricted to the few people who can spend years studying. After all, ignorance of the law is not considered a valid excuse for breaking it. Also, complex, manipulatable laws breed incredibly rich, silver-tongued persons called lawyers, who just can't resist running for public office. When the justice system is more accessible to a regular person, the possibility of an innocent person being convicted of a harsh crime will be drasticly reduced. Then, we can easily have more harsh penalties for truly harsh crimes and the criminals will have less of a chance of getting away with it. Anyway, what I'm saying is, we need a more balanced approach.
The main problem with copyright is not so much that people are getting recognition for their work, that's good as far as I'm concerned. The problem with copyright is that, if you want to make serious money off of your work, you have to utilize your power to restrict others from editing and copying your work, which is what many artists do.
Now, the Founding Fathers realized that, after the artist has made some money off of their work, the public's best interest is served if the work becomes freely copiable and editable. Hence, the "limited time" clause in the constitution. Unfortunately, the heirs of certain authors (Disney and others) have managed to convince the US government to extend the copyright to longer and longer "limited" times. This is exactly opposite of what it should be, because as time goes on and technology speeds things up, it becomes more and more in the public's best interest that books, software, etc. be freely copiable/editible sooner rather than later. Yet it would be unconstitutional for the copyright term to be shortened because it could be regarded "ex post facto".
I feel a solution would be to simply, after a certain number of years, take away the authority of an author to restrict others from copying and editing a given work. Thus, if Windows 2005 were to go out, the copyright holder would still "own" it for 100 years or so, but not the ability to restrict others from copying and editing it.
Another solution would be to limit the amount of money an author/CR holder can get off of royalties.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I sent the following th john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov. Not sure the address is valid though, as his homepage isn't.
(This is an open letter.)
Dear Sir,
I believe that it is extremely important that drug use be curtailed in this country. Methamphetamine use, from what I hear, is extremely addictive, in addition to being very easy and cheap for people to make at home. Drug use is very, very harmful to society.
However, I do not believe that harsher controls are the answer. Especially if those controls have the potential of violating our fourth and first amenndment rights. As citizens, we have the right to say what we like, and that includes, I believe, being allowed to provide instructions on the formulation of drugs. We have the right to provide that information on the internet, and we have the right to link to such sites. A person should not be punishable for merely writing an article or telling someone where to find such an article. The same goes for software - a person should not be punishable for merely providing links to the DeCSS program.
Our fourth amendment rights are, in this case, perhaps even more important. The right of people to not be searched without warrants is extremely important. Even if there is a possibility of a person being guilty of having drugs in their posession, the government should not be able to search their property without a warrant. I am very concerned that innocent people suffer the effects of anti-drug legislation. Here's a quote from an article on Slashdot, a prominent "Geek" news site, in response to an article of mine defending you as George W. Bush's choice for Attorney General:
"There are many issues being used to discredit President-Elect Bush's nominee for Attorney General, John Ashcroft, but one we haven't heard is The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act which Ashcroft authored. It would have allowed the police the authority to conduct secret warrantless searches. If this bill had passed, Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies would be able to to enter private property - e.g., homes, businesses, automobiles - to conduct criminal searches without a warrant and without any legal obligation to inform the private property owner that a search and seizure was conducted until months later, if at all."
I think this flies in the face of the traditional Conservative model of smaller government, more rights for the people, and invividual responsibility. Please reconsider your ideas on drug prevention.
Thanks for the info. I'll be sure and drop him an email protesting this, if I can find his address.
No, I'm serious. We value our freedom to pray, freedom to homeschool, freedom to express our faith, freedom to meet peacably to study the Bible, freedom to take a day of the week off of work, etc. And maybe I'm talking about a certain brand of right-wingers you aren't familiar with. Most geeks here would agree with most right-wingers, and disagree with the ACLU, on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms.
I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to kill someone without just provocation and get away with it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to perfom an abortion, even if I was a doctor, and get away with it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to look lustfully at pornography and get away with it, or post pornography for others to look lustfully at it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to sleep with or rape another man's wife and get away with it. I don't see myself as having the civil liberty to look lustfully at another person of the same gender. There's a lot of things I don't want to do and I don't want others to do. Because they are wrong, and they hurt society. And it's perfectly within the law to try to prevent people from doing these things. Require them not to? Well, it sure would be nice if that wasn't necessary, wouldn't it? Whether it's legal for the government to require them not to is open to debate.
I agree totally. That's why I think Dubya will make a good president - because he believes in the people, and their power to govern themselves. That's why he, and John Ashcroft, don't plan on overturning Roe vs. Wade and banning abortion - not because abortion is acceptible, but because it's the people that need to decide whether it is or not. That's the reason the prohibition didn't work - because people didn't see the problem with drinking and the government tried to force it upon them. That's why I'm hoping for a smaller government and a more informed, values-oriented populace, to compensate. As geeks, it's our duty to explain to people and try to educate them on these issues.
Remember, the values that people try to force upon others are not necessarily wrong, it's just annoying to have them forced upon you. Be sure and evaluate things on their real merits before deciding based upon how you feel. A lot of people decide to buy stereos, tvs, music cds, Windoze, etc. just for entertainment's sake and because it feels good. If they would only stop and think, and if they were a bit more educated on the issues, they might realize what it's going to support.
Nonetheless, laws are necessary to preserve our freedoms and safety. Neither a draconian justice system nor a permissive one serves the people best. The ACLU focuses way too much, I think, upon making the justice system more permissive. An adequate justice system is vital to our peace and safety, just as it is vital that it not over-step it's bounds. All right-wing, Christian organizations that I know of are very pro-freedom. We want a smaller government, as well as a more orderly society that can rule itself. Harsher penalties for harsh crimes, it is felt, will make people think twice about commiting them. The point of emphasis of these right-wing groups is probably one you'd agree with - we don't commit these crimes and we wish noone else would. It's just as much to the potential criminal's benefit as to the innocent potential victim that the crime be prevented. My opinion is, we need to get the justice system in shape. It's waay too complicated for the average individual to deal with. Make the laws simpler, more available, and easier to understand. Understanding of the law should not be restricted to the few people who can spend years studying. After all, ignorance of the law is not considered a valid excuse for breaking it. Also, complex, manipulatable laws breed incredibly rich, silver-tongued persons called lawyers, who just can't resist running for public office. When the justice system is more accessible to a regular person, the possibility of an innocent person being convicted of a harsh crime will be drasticly reduced. Then, we can easily have more harsh penalties for truly harsh crimes and the criminals will have less of a chance of getting away with it. Anyway, what I'm saying is, we need a more balanced approach.
The main problem with copyright is not so much that people are getting recognition for their work, that's good as far as I'm concerned. The problem with copyright is that, if you want to make serious money off of your work, you have to utilize your power to restrict others from editing and copying your work, which is what many artists do. Now, the Founding Fathers realized that, after the artist has made some money off of their work, the public's best interest is served if the work becomes freely copiable and editable. Hence, the "limited time" clause in the constitution. Unfortunately, the heirs of certain authors (Disney and others) have managed to convince the US government to extend the copyright to longer and longer "limited" times. This is exactly opposite of what it should be, because as time goes on and technology speeds things up, it becomes more and more in the public's best interest that books, software, etc. be freely copiable/editible sooner rather than later. Yet it would be unconstitutional for the copyright term to be shortened because it could be regarded "ex post facto". I feel a solution would be to simply, after a certain number of years, take away the authority of an author to restrict others from copying and editing a given work. Thus, if Windows 2005 were to go out, the copyright holder would still "own" it for 100 years or so, but not the ability to restrict others from copying and editing it. Another solution would be to limit the amount of money an author/CR holder can get off of royalties.