From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 02:36:43 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
In-Reply-To: <199707102236.SAA07074@mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <v03102803afec28f008d1@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:48 AM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
...
>Hmmm.  I thought the basis was completely different.  I thought the
>deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting
>suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies.  That
>is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit.
>
>As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co.  And
>there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech
>issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between
>the parties of a civil suit.

The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet
sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking
redress in the courts.

This would seem to be a rather major constitutional issue.

It's also unclear whether the "agreement" covers tobacco companies not even
extant at this time (hence my use of the "Tim's Tobacco Company" example,
where TTC is incorporated in 1998 and begins advertising with Joe
Camel-type ads. Several states attorneys general have opinined that the
deal means a complete end to such advertising, to sponsorship of sporting
events by tobacco companies, etc.

BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling
legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious
constitutional questions.

The problem may lie in class action suits in general. I'm no constitutional
scholar, but I rather doubt the Framers had in mind the concept that J.
Random Luser could sue in courts "on behalf" of thousands or millions of
others who have not even joined the suit or may not even be aware of the
suit, or may not support the suit. And the notion that the states, or
insurance companies, or whatever, could sue to collect their costs when no
contract was involved...well, this is just plain absurd. If I eat too many
hamburgers and develop coronary disease, and some insurance company loses
money on me....they cannot sue MacDonalds or Burger King for making their
costs higher, any more than an exercise gym or health food store can sue
the insurance company and demand a part of the "savings" from the
presumably healthier clients!

There are indeed deep constitutional issues involved in both of the cases
being discussed in this thread.

--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."