From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 00:02:50 -0800 (PST)
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Law and Libel - Or why I use a nym.
In-Reply-To: <199611072010.MAA11330@netcom6.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961108023127.17279F-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> TCM
> >(By the way, I include my ideological usual-ally Black Unicorn on this
> >point. I'm chagrinned that he so quickly and on so many issues has made
> >statements about filing lawsuits--for defamation, for "false advertising"
> >(!!!!), and so on. Not only is this counter to the views many of us hold--I
> >think I sense the zeitgeist of the list--but it is supremely ineffective,
> >as none of these threatened lawsuits ever seem to materialize, thankfully.
> >Using the threat of a lawsuit as a rhetorical debating strategy is not
> >effective.)
> 
> heh, I find Unicorn's zeal to sue anyone for anything quite comical
> and suggestive of a high degree of immaturity.

How ever you may find it, it is the method of choice in the United States
for resolving disputes.  As for my zeal to sue, whom have I sued?  I've
entered into a settlement for a copyright dispute with one list member,
who has since found other outlets for spouting non-sensical rants..

I find that people who are being unreasonable often stop when they realize
a cost might be attached.  It quickly ends the reign of the spoiled brat 
when daddy might have to hire an attorney.  If am I to be demonized for
using the system, so be it.  Until it is changed I too live in the real
world.  As for debating strategy, it has been long clear that no debating
strategy, effective or not, will have any impact on the typical, and
increasingly common, cypherpunks "Loon."

I dislike the legal system in the United States.  If it can, however, be
used to deter loons from spouting absolute nonsense where no other method
has been effective (I believe that both the recent crypto snake oil and
totally contentless rants of a specific poster are a good example) then so
be it.

> but as to your point, the recent Forbes article on Bidzos makes it
> clear that weilding a legal sword alone can be used quite
> shrewdly, strategically, and effectively. 
> the article is quite interesting in how it suggests
> RSA was largely built on threatening to sue people. of course this
> is slightly skewed, because RSA has done things like software
> development that the article didn't mention.

I think many people fail to realize that the right to sue is in many ways
an entitlement.  It is allocated to those who government wishes to protect
and can be wielded because it is the government's wish that a certain
class of individual be so empowered.  In many cases, liberal trash about 
corporations being the only entities who can afford good legal help
aside, it is the only recourse for the average individual.

If the threat to sue is too powerful for your taste, write your
congressman.  It is a tool, no more no less than crypto.  It may not be
the nicest thing in the world to threaten to sue someone, but I have never
threatened anyone with legal recourse who was not given an opportunity to
correct their conduct first.  I've also not threatened anyone with legal
action when no viable case existed.

> actually the lesson seems to be that if you have a software
> patent, the law can be your friend (esp. if you are a business), 
> but if you want to sue someone who calls you names, the law is not very
> accommodating. sorry, Unicorn, maybe you can lobby to fix this
> little deficiency. <g>

1> I don't do lobby work.
2> I don't believe that personal insults fall within the jursidiction of
government (nor should they).

Statements which, on the other hand, cause actual harm to the reputation
of an individual, and where said individual can substantiate that harm,
are, and in my view should be, actionable.  Take note, "Vlad" and
"Dimitri," you stray very close to this boundary.  I've noticed, despite
your bluster, that personal insults from you directed to a specific
cypherpunk have much ebbed since a legal fund began to emerge.

Look folks, you cant tell someone that the neighborhood doctor is on
herion and expect nothing to happen.

You can't tell consumers that your crypto product is absolutely secure
when it isn't and expect nothing to happen.

I submit, cypherpunks, that in this day and age of archived mailing lists
and instant key word searches, suits for defamation and slander will
become MORE important, not less.  Three years from today a prospective
customer of one of you might call up the Alta Vista page and find some
blather about you being on Lithium and decide to give his contract to Bill
instead.  Silly?  Perhaps to the list member who has the context of the
discussion from which to judge the statement.  Not necessarily to the
prospective client, who may not know any better.

Not everyone has been so prudent to protect themselves with a pseudonym
such as I have.  Unfortunate in my view.  I don't need to resort to the
legal system to protect my reputation.  This is by design.  This is as
cypherpunks would have it, or so I would hope.

Mr. May quite rightly points out that resort to the legal system is
somewhat inconsistent with the creed of cypherpunks (if such a thing
exists).  Technology should be used instead.  On this point you will get
no argument from me, I practice just this policy.  Unfortunately, last I
checked, there are perhaps 3 active nyms on the list (Does Pr0duct
Cypher even exist anymore?) and filtering is hardly as common as it should
be.  (At least, judging from the number of complaints about "Vlad" and his
ilk).

Until the rest of you adopt nyms the legal system is all you've got.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland