From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 17:01:35 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment (fwd)
Message-ID: <199702010102.TAA02060@einstein>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Forwarded message:

> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 23:23:18 -0600 (CST)
> From: ichudov@algebra.com
> 
> 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?)

Under the present system? Yes, it would not be worth a lawyers time to
process the appropriate paperwork unless I were a computer scientist and the
statement was published in a reputable magazine by something like the ACM or
IEEE.

Under the system I propose you would be forced to publish a public
recantation in the local press as well as paying the legal fees for the
trial at least. Provided of course it was worth the cost of the bond to
me. After all it is my reputation. The only person who should make decisions
about how important my reputation is to me is me, most definitely not you
or any other third party. I suspect you would not allow me to decide your
reputation either.

> 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?

Neither, the currrent requirements of the law are irrelevant. My premise is
that such current laws are broke, why would I want to promote them? Answer,
I wouldn't. As to 'nice', what is nice isn't an issue. What is necessary is the
recognition that for a democratic society to exist in a world where business
is done based on reputations by parties who may never make more contact
than a email and EFT making statements about such reputations which
are not backed by verifiable evidence should be discouraged strongly.

> > A democratic society should have no tolerence for libel, slander, or other
> > forms of lies.
> 
> Why? And who decides what is a lie?

This is almost too silly to even respond to.

A lie is a statement which could be true but isn't. In the context of the
current discussion this would mean that a statement made by one party about
another party which was told to a third party and was not verifiable with
evidence.

Why should anyone tolerate a liar? Responsible and reasonable people don't
tolerate liars.

Who decides? The same group who decides now, the jury.

> > 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.

This is another clever attempt at a smoke screen. Nice try but 'Brrrrrttt',
you loose the bet. I would suggest you don't play poker, your bluffs are
truly amateurish.

If the plaintiff pays up front or at the end is irrelevant. If the plaintiff
loses they pay the cost of the court. If they win then the defendant pays
the court costs, reimbursment of the bond, and the penalites awarded by the
jury/court. The only reason to require anything up front is to act as a
verification that the plaintiff can pay the court costs (which they get back
if they win and must pay anyway if they loose) up front. The reason being
that it would be possible without this for people to skip out on the court
costs if they loose, which would cause another more expensive cost, a
criminal trial, that the people in general would have to carry. The end
result would be that the taxes we would have to pay would be higher just like
your credit card costs are more expensive than they need to be because of
fraud by other card holders.

I would never attempt to speak for you but I pay too much tax now taking
care of deadbeats and similar sorts.

Further more, the bond would not have to be extravagant. If it were a simple
case of libel with no punitive damages involved it would be resolved by a
small claims court and might require no more than $25 - $50 as a bond. The
point of the bond is to make the plaintiff think twice, not hinder them if
that is what they truly feel is their due.


                                                   Jim Choate
                                                   CyberTects
                                                   ravage@ssz.com