From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 02:24:01 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Matters of Law
Message-ID: <v03102809b08e40f2313f@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Now that one level of the court system has ruled that the First Amendment
does not protect Paladin Press against a lawsuit over its sale of the book
"Hit Man," it may be timely to mention some of the issues.

It is often claimed (here, too) that "anyone may sue." This is true. Just
pay a filing fee, etc., and anyone can sue. Alice can sue Bob because he is
reading "War and Peace." I can sue Suzie because I didn't like the color of
the dress she wore. And so on, so the theory goes.

However, the court system need not let the suit proceed. Many (most?) filed
lawsuits are dismissed on "matters of law." Thus, Alice's lawsuit against
Bob over Bob's choice of reading materials would be thrown out.

(And the courts have even taken steps against those who have filed many
frivolous lawsuits with the apparent intent of harassment. )

It is in this sense that today's court decision allowing the suit against
Paladin to proceed is so pernicious. In a society where free speech and
free dissemination of ideas is protected by the First Amendment, a lawsuit
to stop others from reading or writing certain thoughts should be thrown
out immediately. On a "matter of law."

I'm not a lawyer, but my layman's understanding of "matter of law" is that
an act must have some element of illegality under the criminal code, or
under contract law, before a lawsuit can proceed. Thus, I cannot sue a
restaurant because it chooses not to serve my favorite food, nor can Alice
sue Bob over his choice of reading materials. Nor should anyone be allowed
to sue Paladin Press when no evidence of illegality has been shown (Paladin
was not implicated as a co-conspirator in the murder, and the book "Hit
Man" is not illegal to sell).

I expect the Paladin Press case will go to the Supreme Court now. I hope it
does, at least. And it'll be interesting to see if the ACLU supports a
politically incorrect case like this.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."