For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech.
Hmmm...good point. I should have thought of that before. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
At 10:41 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:
I see your point...prior restraint sucks, but I disagree with you that speech cannot violate rights. What about slander or libel? I believe that I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements against my character. But that's the limit. I think that's about the limit of restriction on speech.
But the reality of it is, prior restraint *does* exist, and seeing as code is speech, the same restrictions that apply to speech apply to code. I am pretty much talking out of my ass (because I am not a lawyer), but what I just said makes sense.
This is well-trod ground, even for this list.
Citing libel and slander in the context of "free speech" is a slippery slope. For one thing, neither libel nor slander has anything to do with First Amendment issues, which are limitations on censorship, prior restraint, etc. (Even the infamous "Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" is more confusing than illuminating, and certainly has nothing to do with censorship or prior restraint.)
Another thing is that this recent discussion about how Microsoft is "suppressing free speech" is just nonsensical.
The list seems to have some new members lately, or is getting cross posts from other lists.
It's important that folks know what the First Amendment says (apologies to non-U.S. folks) and how the term "free speech" is so often misused.
As for your point about "I have the right not to be publicly ridiculed and to be made the subject of untrue statements about my character," boy, have you dialed a wrong number!
For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech.
(And libertarians and other thoughtful persons recognize that incorrect characterizations are their own punishment. This is the concept of "negative reputations." Again, this is well-trod ground: the real debate about "right not to be defamed" turns out to translate to a debate about "unequal powers," as when a newspaper defames a peon. Defamation of you by me is never considered important enough to pass laws over.)
Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or "markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, contact your protection racket and have them contact mine for some bargaining.
--Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns