Re: The Esther Dyson Flap
At 08:11 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
Esther Dyson says that anonymity on the Net can do more damage than anonymity in other forums, and thus may need to be regulated and restricted in various ways. I disagree, as "the Net of a Million Lies" (to use Vinge's term) has grown up with anonymity, and few people take the anonymous (or not) rants and charges made in the millions per day with the same degree of certainty they take print comments. Put another way, there is no clear and present danger.
Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as "slander" and "libel" precisely because they cause more harm than good. Currently, there is an illusion among ordinary citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him for libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical. In that way, the law actually adds credibility to what should be an incredible claim. Eliminate libel suits, and you've eliminated any presumption that because it's been spoken or is in print, it's likely to be correct. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:
At 08:11 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
Esther Dyson says that anonymity on the Net can do more damage than anonymity in other forums, and thus may need to be regulated and restricted in various ways. I disagree, as "the Net of a Million Lies" (to use Vinge's term) has grown up with anonymity, and few people take the anonymous (or not) rants and charges made in the millions per day with the same degree of certainty they take print comments. Put another way, there is no clear and present danger.
Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as "slander" and "libel" precisely because they cause more harm than good. Currently, there is an illusion among ordinary citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him for libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical. In that way, the law actually adds credibility to what should be an incredible claim. Eliminate libel suits, and you've eliminated any presumption that because it's been spoken or is in print, it's likely to be correct.
The gubment has no right to fuck with any speech - (seditius) libel, child porn, bomb-making instructions... --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Timothy C. May writes:
Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as "slander" and "libel" precisely because they cause more harm than good. Currently, there is an illusion among ordinary citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him for libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical. In that way, the law actually adds credibility to what should be an incredible claim. Eliminate libel suits, and you've eliminated any presumption that because it's been spoken or is in print, it's likely to be correct.
Reputation performs this function very well, and without expensive litigation. That is why there is really no clear and present danger posed by inacurate information on the Net. Governments shield themselves far better by promoting conspiracy theory as a recreational activity than they ever could by prosecuting people who expose their activities. Drowning signal in noise effectively obscures it without lending credence to material one cannot easily debunk. As they say on X-Files, "The Truth is Out There..." (Somewhere) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
[excise]
The gubment has no right to fuck with any speech - (seditius) libel, child porn, bomb-making instructions...
Agreed. Otherwise, by a slipery slope argument, they can eventually supress any form of speech whatsoever.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (4)
-
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Florian Lengyel -
jim bell -
mpd＠netcom.com