InstaPundit points to a 1999 program in which Eric Holder -- then Deputy Attorney General, and now President-Elect Obama's choice for Attorney General -- was expressing support for "reasonable restrictions" on certain kinds of Internet speech. I thought I'd give a bit more context, especially since it relates to one of my research areas.
The recording seems to come from an April 25, 1999 Face the Nation segment discussing the Littleton massacre. Here's an excerpt from the CBS transcript:
[Host BOB] SCHIEFFER: Mr. Holder, you can also learn how to make a bomb on the Internet, on the Web. How do you police that?Mr. HOLDER: Well, it's very difficult, given the tenor of the recent Supreme Court cases. The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate it. We tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing, but it seems to me that if we can come up with reasonable restrictions, reasonable regulations in how people interact on the Internet, that is something that the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.
I assume that Holder was talking about what was then a bill, but was enacted four months later (Pub. L. 106-54) as 18 USC § 842(p):
(p) DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.--(1) DEFINITIONS.--In this subsection--
(A) the term 'destructive device' has the same meaning as in section 921(a)(4);
(B) the term 'explosive' has the same meaning as in section 844(j); and
(C) the term 'weapon of mass destruction' has the same meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2).
(2) PROHIBITION.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or
(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence.
I discuss this statute, among many others, in my Crime-Facilitating Speech article in the Stanford Law Review. I conclude that subsection 2(B), which basically deals with individualized giving of crime-facilitating information to a particular person, is constitutional (much like aiding and abetting laws are generally constitutional, even when applied to speech, and even when they require only knowledge that the aid will be used in criminal ways rather than a purpose that it be so used). But I argue that subsection 2(A), even though it is limited to speakers who have the purpose of promoting violent crime by some of their unknown listeners, is not constitutional, for reasons I go into at great length.
Nonetheless, I think there are plausible arguments in favor of the constitutionality of subsection 2(A), canvassed at length in this 1997 Justice Department Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information. So if I'm right that then-Deputy Attorney General Holder was discussing this proposal -- which seems likely -- rather than some more comprehensive attempt to restrict online speech, then it seems to me that his view of the matter is moderate and defensible, though I have come to disagree with it.
Because the use of expedient explosives is certainly a military concept, and creating, procuring, and employing such a matter of field manuals published by the DoD, I suspect any such law falls afoul of the 2nd amendment. These devices are certainly arms used by individuals, and they are not much unlike the grenades in use at the time the 2nd was written.
And of course Miller implies that items of uniquely military use are protected by the 2nd.
As as aside, as XKCD quips, the 2nd should cover encrypted communication means as well.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
As did something called, iirc, "The Assassin's Handbook" (or manual).
My copy is on the bookshelf in the 'cool engineering' section, right next to the books on the intricate details of fossil fuel power plants, marine propulsion plants, steel making, 'Amateur Telescope Making', etc.
Anyone who has spent one day as a prosecutor is unqualified to be AG as far as I'm concerned, though I know most will not agree with me on this.
The presidential election was only a couple of weeks ago, and you've already forgotten about guilt by association?
Good point.
This shouldn't be the only type of person we employ in government. We need some of the "rights preservers" too in order to have balance. But for the person whose job is to lead an organziation dedicated to law enforcement you probably want experience in law enforcement.
As Instapundit has said so often, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
We've had eight years of this....
I'd rather have my rights and not have every criminal locked up than lose/restrict my rights to get an extra conviction.
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php
I'd hate (is that a crime?) to be investigated for such discussions.
IOW, if I say to you, "Teach me how to make a bomb," you can do it. If I say, "Teach me how to make a bomb so I can go blow up the White House," you can't.