At 5:51 AM -0700 6/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In <Pine.GSO.3.95.970608053415.20770A-100000@well.com>, on 06/08/97 at 07:36 AM, Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> said:
I don't think commercial speech should be treated as second-class speech. But my position is hardly surprising.
Well I think that there are some that would confuse the issue between 1st Amendment free speech and the issues surrounding fraud. Especially those in government who write the laws that regulate commercial speech.
The mistake has been to extend "fraud" laws to non-contract situations, e.g., ordinary speech (as distinguished from contracts). If the Catholics say drinking the blood of JC and eating a piece of his flesh (aka, "Jesus sashimi") will get you into Heaven, is this fraud or not? In the increasingly popular notion of fraud, sure it is. It is a statement or assurance which is almost certainly false. But then, aren't all religions frauds? Contracts, with clearly stated conditions and with judgeable or falsifiable/testable conditionals, are a matter for the courts (private courts, in fact), but vague promises, advertisements, propaganda, etc. are not. Clear now? --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."