From: ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:26:52 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks)
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199701310413.WAA00226@einstein>
Message-ID: <199701310523.XAA13320@manifold.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


Jim Choate wrote:
> 
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
> > Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:46:57 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
> > 
> > * The 1st Amendment does protect some lies.
> 
> No, it protects speech. The Constitution is meant to protect citizens from a
> priori constraints on their speech, not the results of the content ex post
> facto.
> 
> It is clearly not in the best interest of society to limit opinions or
> fiction.
> 
> > If I say "Jim Choate is a
> > Venusian albatross," the statement is probably (?) a lie,
> 
> No, for it to be a lie there must be a potentiality of its truth. A nonsense
> statement which happens to fit the syntactical rules of a language wouldn't
> qualify.

I can give you an example.

``Jim Choate invented an improved bubble sort method, called BSAM.''

This is undoubtedly false since you likely did not invent any sorting
method. But you would not be able to get any damages (is that correct?)

> The legal standard should be that if you make statements purported to be
> true about a third party without their prior consent you should be held to
> a minimum standard of evidence demonstrating the actuality of your statement.

When you say "should", what do you mean? That the current law will
hold you to a minimum standard of evidence?

Or you mean that it would be nice if it were so?

> A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other
> forms of lies.

Why? And who decides what is a lie?

> > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. 
> > It is, they say, a rich man's game
> 
> Exactly, instead of equal protection under the law we have a specieocracy.

... and then 20 lines later: 

> In civil cases the plaintiff should place a bond, set at some percentage of
> the maximum permissible award, at the time the case is filed. This would at
> least cover the general costs of the court and limit nuisance cases.
> 

You can either oppose "specieocracy" and inequality of rich and
poor in libel litigation, or ask to place bonds that will make even
harder for the poor to sue, BUT NOT BOTH, if you want to remain logical.

	- Igor.