1997-06-10 - Re: Fraud and free speech

Header Data

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Message Hash: 5003003023065be2445365340d95148cec176cd0455577c1bb2107e561e371f3
Message ID: <v03102817afc32d50dc85@[207.167.93.63]>
Reply To: <v03102804afc0fc8e1db0@[207.167.93.63]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-10 16:29:03 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:29:03 +0800

Raw message

From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 00:29:03 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Fraud and free speech
In-Reply-To: <v03102804afc0fc8e1db0@[207.167.93.63]>
Message-ID: <v03102817afc32d50dc85@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 9:06 AM -0700 6/10/97, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 5:27 PM -0700 6/8/97, Tim May wrote:
>>(Oh, and it almost goes without saying that the same "lies" William and
>>others are so worried about in "commercial" speech happen all the time in
>>non-commerical speech. For every example of where commercial speech
>>involves lies or fraud, I can find similar or fully equivalent
>>non-commercial examples, ranging from lies like "I love you" to get a
>>partner into bed to deliberate misstatements to mislead an opponent. Why
>>should such "lies" be protected while putatively commercial speech is to be
>>subjected to an increasing number of limitations?)
>
>The only justification I can think of off hand is that a presumption of
>truth may make for more efficient markets.  On the other hand, it also has
>very bad effects when applied to political speech.

I was speaking of justifications in the Constitution.

There is of course a little phrase about "the power to regulate commerce,"
by which was meant (until this century) the power to set tariffs and a very
few other things related to commerce.

This century, though, this clause has been used to to what I think are
severely unconstitutional things, like place restrictions on certain items
(tobacco, alchohol, drugs). And advertising. And the airwaves. And so on. A
pernicious reach by Congress into the choices of vendors and consumers.

As for Bill's point that a mandate on truth would possibly make for more
efficient markets, I doubt it. Who determines truth? And a populace which
believes everything it is told must be true because the government requires
truth will necessarily lose critical thinking abilities.

--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."









Thread