GOODIES TO GO! ™
May 3, 1999 — Newsletter #26
***********************************************************
Please visit https://www.htmlgoodies.com
***********************************************************
Do you recognize these words?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Like all of you, I was horrified to watch and read about
the school shootings and bombings at Columbine High School
in Littleton, Colorado. I watched the coverage with great
interest, especially the section regarding Eric Harris
and Dylan Klebold’s use of the Internet.
A reporter made the statement that the two gunmen found
recipes for pipe bombs and other explosives easily on the
Internet. I had heard that type of statement before so I
decided I would actually try to find this information
myself.
42 seconds.
It took me 42 seconds to find the ingredients for a pipe
bomb on the Net. My wife said it best when she quickly
commented, “Let’s get out of this. I don’t like this.”
I didn’t like it either. The page was a true dichotomy.
On one hand it offered information on how to create a
high powered explosive, and on the other it offered
specific safety instructions for the correct usage of
explosives. It was both a protectorate and a perpetrator.
Strangely, the page had quite an affect on me. I only
read the method of creating the bomb once, yet I can
still recite it word for word. It’s nothing I take great
joy in, but I still find it strange. It’s like the vision
of a car accident you can’t seem to shake loose.
The text that started off this newsletter is the First
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This
text is cited more often than any other part of U.S.
governing text.
I talked to two of my classes of students about what the
First Amendment means, what it allows you to do. I was
especially concerned about the “or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”
section.
Most of the students knew that the amendment was not
carte blanche to say anything you want, any time you want,
to anyone you want. In fact, because of the First
Amendment being challenged in court again and again,
there are 13 (as far as I found) restrictions upon free
speech. The most popular would have to be the familiar
one about yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie house.
Other places where freedom of speech doesn’t fully apply
include:
1. Maintaining the integrity of the judicial process
2. In order to maintain the reliability and preparedness
of the armed services
3. Fighting words that tend to incite immediate violence,
offensive speech to a hostile, potentially violent
audience, false statements likely to cause panic (the
“fire in a crowded movie house” restriction).
4. Untrue defamatory speech (slander) or other
communication (libel).
“But…” one student shouted, “The First Amendment can’t
apply to posting to the Internet about how to create a
bomb.”
Ah, but it does.
Those who wish to find support for their posting the
ingredients of any type of explosive need only look back
to 1979, long before the Internet was a popular place to
post this kind of information.
Back then, a man named Howard Morland wrote an article for
the magazine “The Progressive” that explained how one could
go about building an H-Bomb. The article was fairly
detailed and easily gave someone with a little background
knowledge everything they needed to know about creating a
lethal, to say the least, weapon.
Justice officials immediately brought suit in a Wisconsin
federal district court. They, and the judge for that
matter, believed Morland would present a danger so serious
that restraint would be justified. The government, in the
case of “U.S. vs. The Progressive,” claimed that nuclear
weapon secrets were “classified at birth” because allowing
them to get out would corrupt the “reliability and
preparedness of the armed services.”
Morland countered that he had not revealed any secrets, but
rather found everything he needed by reading through
published articles and journals already in print. He had
written the article by going to government and public
libraries to gather information. His purpose, claimed he
and “The Progressive,” was to point out that there are no
secrets regarding nuclear weaponry and that anyone could
do what he did.
Morland lost. The judge himself, Robert W. Warren, claimed
that what he was doing was a grave violation of the First
Amendment, but that the brevity of the situation called
for this type of decision.
That statement, of course, opened the way for “The
Progressive” to appeal. They did, but the case never got
fully through. Six months later the entire proceeding was
dropped when a computer programmer wrote, and a Wisconsin
newspaper printed, basically the same information Morland
tried to publish a year earlier. Six other newspapers
picked up the story and ran the letter, which included
everything from a list of ingredients to a diagram of the
bomb’s mechanism. The author (whose name I could not find)
claimed he found all he wrote about in public documents.
No one was charged, no one was prosecuted, and “The
Progressive” ran the Morland article in November of 1979
under the title “The H-Bomb Secret: To Know How Is to Ask
Why.”
The precedent was set. As long as the information you are
providing comes from public sources, you can pretty much
print anything, including the recipe for a pipe bomb. And
when you do, you’re protected under the First Amendment
right of free speech.
Before the Internet, getting information out to a mass
audience was a bit tougher. Newspapers, magazines, and
broadcast facilities were the main methods, and those
mediums could refuse to run your story.
You could create a newsletter or do a mass mailing, but
then the cost or rules governing the mail system could put
an end to your dissemination of information.
Today, the Internet is a blank palette that carries no
gatekeeping and no editorial restraints. There’s nothing
to stop a person from posting pipe bomb instructions,
pornography, hate sites, or myriad other topics that
someone else will find offensive.
One of my students felt that was both the horror and the
beauty of the Internet. Once restraints are placed on a
topic because someone else dislikes the message, it’s
only a matter of time before everything that offends
anyone becomes taboo.
I’d like to tell you I know the answer, but I don’t. It
seems this web of computers has truly become too large to
police, and even if we tried… who is to say what is good
and what is bad? I agree, the pipe bomb recipes should
come down. It offends me, but giving someone the right
to eliminate something because it offends them offends me
even more.
As was pointed out to me by my 10th grade government
teacher, “The First Amendment guarantees you the right to
say just about anything you want. What it does not
guarantee is that anyone will listen.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And that’s that. Thank you for reading.
Joe Burns, Ph.D.
And Remember: Men’s shirts button with the left side
overlapping the right while woman’s blouses overlap from
the right. Why? It’s because it is easiest for a right-
handed person to button when the overlap is on the left.
Back when buttons were first used, men used to dress
themselves and women were usually “dressed” by someone
else. Thus, the buttoning was backward for a woman so her
dresser would have an easier time of it. I guess the
pattern just stuck.