cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-06-11 - Re: Fraud and free speech

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 74b08c6a73649c919052b19c9fcb57701bbac690bc76f88229ab92ecbd809a15
Message ID: <iiX48D62w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <v03007852afc32baeb7d6@[207.94.249.152]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-11 01:17:47 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:17:47 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 09:17:47 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Fraud and free speech
In-Reply-To: <v03007852afc32baeb7d6@[207.94.249.152]>
Message-ID: <iiX48D62w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> writes:

>
> 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'm inclined to argue that "presumption of truth" and "implied warranty
of merchantability" actually lead to LESS efficient markets, but I'm
too tried tonite.  If anyone's interesting, please ping me later. :-)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Thread