From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 22:37:06 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
Message-ID: <ad6e59bb120210044720@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 5:59 AM 3/15/96, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At  9:26 PM 3/14/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform
>>you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please
>>retract them, now.
>
>Political speech, not commercial speech.  The act doesn't apply or is
>unconstitutional.

I recognize no such distinction, and neither does--in my reading--the First
Amendment. The First doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law...except for
commercial speech...and except for religious speech...and except for
insulting speech...." It said, simply, "Congress shall make no law..."

(Before Bill jumps in and points out that he said nothing about religious,
insulting, etc. forms of speech, I added those because it underscores just
what "Congress shall make no law" means.)

The issue of _fraudulent claims_ is presumably a main reason for those who
think commercial speech is "different" from ordinary speech. Fraud is tough
to control through legislation without severely limiting free speech. For
example, if a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door and tells me all the
wonderful things that will happen if I convert, is this fraud? Before one
says this is "noncommercial," more fortunes have been lost or given away to
Moonies, Christians, and other cults than all the financial scams in
history. If a recruit to the Unification Church "is led to believe" that
she will find salvation in the bosom of the Church if she donates her
inheritance, is this fraud?

Personally, while I view all religions as basically fraudulent, liberal
societies have accepted the view that it's best that the State not seek to
determine which claims are true, that "caveat emptor" should be the rule.

The same caveat emptor view is the basic rationale for the First Amendment.
It is recognized that free speech will inevitably cause some people to make
bad decisions, to make bad investments (such as in the canonical case of an
investment advisor giving advice that turns out to be flaky), and so on.
"Don't believe everything you hear" is the operative phrase.

Again, I see no distinction between commercial and other forms of speech.
If a contract is involved, then civil law is the way to handle this. (As it
might be with religious speech, where someone is told contractually that if
they give $10,000 to the church their blindness will be cured. Key to a
contract must be a testable set of results.)


The First is under constant attack by people who claim that some type of
speech is "not covered" by the First, or that other clauses of the
Constitution give the State authority to regulate speech, or that the
Founders did not "intend" for certain types of speech to be protected. The
"campaign reformers" want limits placed on how much speech a candidate may
issue (or how much speech people like me, as a volunteer or PAC, can
issue). The medical protectionists want the speech of quacks, midwives, and
other non-union members suppressed. And the arguments about "commercial
speech" could mean broad limits on speech.


>>Do you see the problem?
>
>Of course.  Why do you think I said (in the 4th paragraph which you didn't
>quote) (ZING :-) ):

Touche.

>BTW - I consider non-free markets, produced primarily by oligarchic
>combines of large organizations to be a major impediment to removing
>government influence from the economic system.  Easing market entry is one
>way to reduce the power of these oligarchic combines.  I don't want to just
>trade elected government oppression for unelected corporate oppression.  To
>put it bluntly, to suppress the 19th century coal mining strikes, the
>companies hired the Pinkertons.  I don't see a whole lot of difference
>between this kind of private enterprise transaction, and Ruby Ridge.

But this is direct violence. Libertarians don't condone this. Using
episodes of such violence, by any side, as an argument against free markets
is just an appeal to emotion.

(I'm of course not saying we will ever be free of people initiating the use
of force.)

As for "oligarchic combines," certainly much larger and more concentrated
examples may be found in Microsoft and Intel, which currently have about
80% apiece of their respective markets. Not to many Pinkerton guards
forcing we Mac users to switch to Microsoft and Intel....


--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."