Re: Fraud and free speech
Tim May wrote:
At 5:51 AM -0700 6/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
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).
Any time that you see a thread in which Kent Crispin accuses someone of trying to "muddy the waters" you can pretty much guarantee he is trying to throw a logical curveball of his own. Kent added some tripe to the thread supporting his favorite theme, which is that it is the job of government to "enforce" contractual agreements. Naturally, he also extends the format of these contracts to include government authority to enforce criminal penalties for statements made by the great grandfather of the second cousin of the spouse of one of the person making the contract. Follow any thread after a Crispin post and you will find people arguing over issues he raises which have little basis in reality.
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.
Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual matters. We now have a system where if someone breaks agreement with you the government locks them in a cage where there is no possibility of them paying you what they are contractually obligated to. The government doesn't give a fat rat's ass what your desires are for resolution of the dispute. They are always busy protecting the nebulous "other" rather than someone real, with a real interest in the situation. The government mandates that contractual agreements must be settled in a forum where the corporation with an army of lawyers can bury the attorney that Joe Average picked out of the yellow pages. When you enter into a contractual agreement with someone who has a guy named "Big Louie" as arbitrator, however, the government calls it organized crime. Pardon me if I fail to see the distinction. TruthMonger
On Sun, Jun 08, 1997 at 10:23:43PM -0400, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Tim May wrote:
At 5:51 AM -0700 6/8/97, William H. Geiger III wrote:
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).
Any time that you see a thread in which Kent Crispin accuses someone of trying to "muddy the waters" you can pretty much guarantee he is trying to throw a logical curveball of his own.
The ones you really have to watch out for are my logical spitballs. But I am deeply flattered that you take me so seriously.
Kent added some tripe to the thread supporting his favorite theme, which is that it is the job of government to "enforce" contractual agreements. Naturally, he also extends the format of these contracts to include government authority to enforce criminal penalties for statements made by the great grandfather of the second cousin of the spouse of one of the person making the contract.
You are completely misrepresenting me here -- I distinctly said "grandmother of the first cousin". And my favorite theme is from one of the Brandenberg Concertos.
Follow any thread after a Crispin post and you will find people arguing over issues he raises which have little basis in reality.
You have a point there. You will search in vain for a stitch of reality in this post.
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.
Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual matters.
It's pointless to reply to Dimitri -- he filters my posts. Of course I would be delighted to engage in a civilized discourse with him, but it's impossible.
We now have a system where if someone breaks agreement with you the government locks them in a cage where there is no possibility of them paying you what they are contractually obligated to. The government doesn't give a fat rat's ass what your desires are for resolution of the dispute. They are always busy protecting the nebulous "other" rather than someone real, with a real interest in the situation.
A revealing paragraph, indeed.
The government mandates that contractual agreements must be settled in a forum where the corporation with an army of lawyers can bury the attorney that Joe Average picked out of the yellow pages. When you enter into a contractual agreement with someone who has a guy named "Big Louie" as arbitrator, however, the government calls it organized crime. Pardon me if I fail to see the distinction.
OK -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
Dimitri wrote a couple of posts which dealt well with the original concept of two parties agreeing on an arbitrator/judge to settle contractual disputes (e.g. the court of Prince X) and the following usurpment of these free-will agreements by people in power who decree that _they_ are now the only valid arbitrator/judge in contractual matters.
It's pointless to reply to Dimitri -- he filters my posts. Of course I would be delighted to engage in a civilized discourse with him, but it's impossible.
Kent is lying again, as usual. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Kent Crispin -
lucifer＠dhp.com