Re: [Re: Re: Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts]
Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will be an abstract argument. When the process of harvesting on "free markets" is put in judgement, so will the harvest reached in an economy were an "invisible hand" rules. Perhaps both should be rightfully analyzed but which one first? David Stultz <ds932@bard.edu> wrote:
Just playing the Devil's Advocate here.
Are you allowed to go into a theatre and yell, "FIRE!!!" when there is none? Nope.
There *are* restrictions on speech. If MS's "speech" violated somebody's rights, that speech can be made illegal.
Dave
PS I agree that code is speech.
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, lizard wrote:
"Colin A. Reed" wrote:
I'll admit that the trial was fucked up from the start by the decision
to
center it around netscape rather than something more blatant like stac. Anyways, this has nothing to do with FC, unless you think that enterprise is fundamentally expressive and Microsoft's vicious suppression of competition has limited the ability of others to be heard.
But if source code is free speech, isn't a judge ordering some code be removed/edited/changed an intrustion on free speech? Isn't saying "Remove Explorer from the core install!" the same as saying "Remove this chapter from this book!"
Sure, the chapter can then be republished separately, but who is the judge to decide what elements of a work of speech belong together?
Code IS speech. And this has implications beyond DECSS and PGP.
____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
On 27 Feb 2001, LUIS VILDOSOLA wrote:
Relating how code can infringe on someone else's rights will be an abstract argument.
Not at all, code itself can NEVER infringe anothers right, UNLESS it's executed (acted upon). Speech in and of itself is powerful because of its two characteristics, - It's harmless and does nothing in and of itself. - It motivates peoples imagination to act. It is the second point that ALL regulation of speech, expression, press, distribution, etc. exists for. Fundamentaly all government regulation of speech is nothing more than a covert attempt to manage your consequent behaviour. It is not the speech but what others may do with it. It is clear the person emitting the speech has no control over the person receiving the speech. But we can't control the second party until it's too late. So we try to control the first party. Further, if we accept the premise that the first party is responsible for the acts of the second party, then what of the unmentioned parties acting on the first party? And if we claim the first party is acting of their own free will then what character of the second party is our litmus test? What aspect of the relationship between the first and second parties is missing in the relationship between the first and unnamed parties that relieves the unnamed parties of responsibility for the acts of the first party? And isn't the regulation of PREVIOUS speech by such a unnamed party also proof that the first party isn't acting of their own free will? Isn't the fact that this unnamed party removed the potential good from banned speech from the situation and thus itself participated in the affront? And because they did so with forethought doesnt' this compound their part? ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
LUIS VILDOSOLA