From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:12:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Fraud and free speech
In-Reply-To: <v03102802afc0e602d172@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v03102807afc2016e6825@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 7:11 PM -0700 6/8/97, Kent Crispin wrote:

>
>But the fundamental principle that says "redress is available for speech
>that causes harm" seems fairly clean.  That cuts across advertising,
>salespersons lies, libel/slander, yelling "fire" in a theater -- a
>whole gamut of free speech issues.  Spam falls under such a rule, as
>well.  Of course, the issue of prior restraint is orthogonal to this
>rule...

This "fundamental principle" is not nearly as clean or as fundamental as
you represent.

Much speech indisputably "causes harm." Some harm is economic, some harm is
pyschogical, some harm is even physical.

Much of this speech remains protected, even in these times where the
Constitution has suffered decay. For example, one of the tests for libel
and slander, to name an example where "harm" is usually claimed, is
"knowingly false."

And in commercial areas, much "harm" is done by businesses to other
businesses, and yet this is (properly) protected. When a business
advertises its lower prices, or cites endorsements from luminaries, this is
"speech." If another business is "harmed" by this speech, is there
"redress"?

No. And there should not be. Harm is a name for various adverse
developments. Many if not most of them are closely linked to speech issues.
Legislating harm away is not consistent with a free and open society.

The example of "falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" (I inserted
the word "falsely" as this is often left out by folks, and is of course
central to the point) is well-trod ground. The SC Justice who used this
later said he wished he'd never used the expression, as it was used by all
manner of people seeking to limit speech.

Spam is a name for "unwanted communications." The proper solution is
technological/ontological, e.g., metering. It is a defect of our current
e-mail model that one can deliver a million pieces of e-mail for no cost.
This will be fixed, and is a solution vastly preferable to having a
government agency decide which communications are permissable and which are
not.

(Many of these issues are mooted by crypto anarchy, of course.)

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."