> For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect > your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining > what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The > cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech. Hmmm...good point. I should have thought of that before. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote: > At 10:41 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote: > >I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that > >speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel? I believe > >that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the > >subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. > >I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech. > > > >But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code > >is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am > >pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I > >just said makes sense. > > This is well-trod ground, even for this list. > > Citing libel and slander in the context of "free speech" is a > slippery slope. For one thing, neither libel nor slander has anything > to do with First Amendment issues, which are limitations on > censorship, prior restraint, etc. (Even the infamous "Falsely > shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" is more confusing than > illuminating, and certainly has nothing to do with censorship or > prior restraint.) > > Another thing is that this recent discussion about how Microsoft is > "suppressing free speech" is just nonsensical. > > The list seems to have some new members lately, or is getting cross > posts from other lists. > > It's important that folks know what the First Amendment says > (apologies to non-U.S. folks) and how the term "free speech" is so > often misused. > > As for your point about "I have the right not to be publicly > ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements about my > character," boy, have you dialed a wrong number! > > For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect > your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining > what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The > cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech. > > (And libertarians and other thoughtful persons recognize that > incorrect characterizations are their own punishment. This is the > concept of "negative reputations." Again, this is well-trod ground: > the real debate about "right not to be defamed" turns out to > translate to a debate about "unequal powers," as when a newspaper > defames a peon. Defamation of you by me is never considered important > enough to pass laws over.) > > Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil > actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice > alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets > for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your > protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining. > > > --Tim May > -- > Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California > Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon > Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go > Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns >
