Matthew Findley wrote: > This doesn't have anything to do with act being more probable then the > other. You aren't responsable for the entire network; only what your node > is doing. Just because you can't see what your node is doing doesn't > excues anything. Running freenet is not a civial libertiy. > > Laws are not made to outlaw specific ways of commint a crime so there will > never be a law that says useing freenet is illegal. Laws are only written > to outlaw certin acts, like transmitting KP. > > "Saying someone is guilty of something by helping someone is meaningless > and no judge would let you get your foot in the courtroom with this > steaming pile of accusations." ... so wrong. Helping someone commit a > crime is very illegal, it always has been and always will be. > > Let me pose something to you. > Right now I'm telling you that there is overwhelimingly strong likelyhood > that running a freenet node will help someone spread illegel material. Are > you still going to run your node? > If you are then you are knowingly commiting a crime. Why do you think you > should be able to get away with it?
Absolute FUD. There is a strong likelyhood that running Windows will help spread SPAM. If my machine is infected to send out an email that can be considered illegal, by your reasoning I can be guilty of committing a crime, even though I had *no criminal intent*. Your argument is just a re-statement of the ideas behind the preservation of the United States' Intellectual Properly laws, which (if undermined) threaten to undermine the industries who make billions from said system (film, TV, Music). -- Jay Oliveri GnuPG ID: 0x5AA5DD54 FCPTools Maintainer www.sf.net/users/joliveri _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
