[This note was written in response to a note from Black Unicorn to me. He suggested at the end that I could copy the Cypherpunks list on it, so I have done so. However, I've deleted some of his points, and since he did not post his note to the list, some context may be unclear. That's life.] I'm responding, but only to a few points. Thanks for your comments. I won't repeat my points, so no comment just means that.
I thought I would reply in person, and off the list because your's is an opinion which in my mind carries with it a great deal of forethough and is deserving of much respect.
Feel free to post your response (what I'm replying to here) to the list as a whole. Yes, it's long. But it's of more relevance to our world than most of the stuff that gets posted, especially the endless forwardings of Chaum's announcement, for example.
I feel we are in many ways alike in the way we approach problems (I hope you will take this as a compliment :) ) and in some ways we are akin in politics.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I have no hesitation in advocating the collapse of central governments, as you know. Central governments of both the left and the right have killed hundreds of millions of people, so the "dangers" of anarchy look comparatively mild to me.
I doubt even tmp is "entirely" anonymous. Anyone with a reputation is to some degree non-anonymous.
Of course we all know who he is, for many reasons.
I post anonymously to keep my real name out of common circulation. This is particularly true of the "scholarly" postings I make. I do not want these attributed to me in the circles in which I travel. At the same time, I take a casual approach to my identity. There are those on the list who know me in person, and I don't feel threatened by this. It is merely a buffer for an entirely seperate set of endeavors (business v. academic pleasure if you like). I have never made extreme efforts to remain entirely unassociated with my real name to friends. Such is not the case to business associates.
If enough people know that Black Unicorn = Fritz Foobar, then the linkage can be made and the "damage" done. As others have said, you apparently have some uptight customers. That's not my problem, or anyone else's who makes the normal kind of comments on the Net. (Tmp goes beyond normal, but if your lawsuit was centered around the "damages" aspect, then potentially nearly any of our opinions could be "damaging" because of your overly sensitive European customers. That's not right.)
In my case an old law school classmate of mine asked for my help on the net. (Usenet in particular, along with PGP). Clearly this fell under the "personal relationship" which my anonymous posting was never intended to protect against.
After watching the posting war between myself and tmp, said friend faxed copies (unwittingly with newsprint looking text) with attributation to make the reference clear to a mutual associate who unfortunately tended more to the "business" side of relationships.
I'd say you have some sleazy friends, then. For them to fax off copies of what they think of as rants is bad enough, but for one of your contacts to then "alert" the others is mind-boggling.
Black Unicorn has certainly made postings that I think are strongly in line with the ideas I call "crypto anarchist." Does my saying this constitute some kind of libel on Black Unicorn, should this posting somehow make it back to the Black Forest or someplace like that?
No. You are speaking a truth. My ideas do fall in line with your definition of cryptoanarchy. They do not however make me a radical anarchist bent on the destruction of nations as tmp alleged.
Tmp was just using a label. I'll admit the semi-forgery was not kosher, though these semi-forgeries are transparent to anyone who looks at the headers. But calling you an anarchist bent on the destruction of nations is acceptable characterization in a political debate. If I say Bill Clinton wants to destroy the health care system, this is normal political rhetoric. If Detweiler calls me a Satanist, so what? ("What if your customers were Moral Majority Christians?" you might ask. Then I'd say that all one has to do is tell one's customers the truth. Under no circumstances can the 'damage" caused by tmp's kind of free spech be considered assault. I'm a free speech absolutist. That the comments tmp made came in a heated forum for such political debate makes it all the more wrong for a lawsuit.)
I've been on the list for some time now, lurking then posting when I had a feel for who read it, and where it went. I never felt threatened by my presence on the list, and never did it occur to me that anyone on the list could or would "out" me to my business associates.
Even if they do, so what? Not to sound angry here, but suppose I speculated that Black Unicorn = Fritz Foobar? Would the "damage" that ensued be my fault? I just don't get it. That the Cypherpunks list is not public--except when it gets gatewayed to Usenet, as has happened a few times--is little protection. If I cite your views--but don't quote them verbatim--in a forum where your Swiss customers see them somehwo, have *I* committed a crime or tort? Not in my view, though the law may think so. (I still say it's free speech, even if "damaging." Many things are damaging...negative book reviews, unflattering opinions, etc. Sadly, the American legal sytem is moving toward allowing these "damages" to be the basis for suits.)
rumor mill this is not the case. I would not be HAPPY if my business associates saw my posts on cypherpunks, but I would be (and was) much more upset if they saw only the accusatory rants of tmp.
The proper and normal response to accusatory rants is to answer them. Are you calling for limits on "accusatory rants"? The Founding Fathers would not be amused.
The real difficulty in these affairs is that not to file a suit is often more damning than anything.
I think your reputation would have no lasting damage done to it by ordinary speech. Even so, Detweiler's rants are clearly broad-brushed insults, which courts should not regulate. Your uptight Swiss clients should be taught not be believe everything they read.
A settlement is vindication enough in my case.
Except that Detweiler's "apology" was obvious satire, almost identical to the "apology" he posted to the Cypherpunks last December. He is likely now planning a much more massive assault on you and his other perceived enemies....a campaign of fabricating quotes, arguing with himself via different pseudonyms, etc. And now that he knows your uptight Swiss customers are so sensitive, he will probably try to find ways to let them know about your "anarchist" leanings. If he's as smart as I think he is, he'll use the network of remailers. He'll also try to fabricate quotes that make you seem like a truly vicious money launderer, perhaps with insinuations that your furniture business is a cover for drug trafficking. (If I were Detweiler, licking my wounds, plotting revenge, that's what I'd do.) If this happens, as I predict it will, your recourse will be to either try to force the remailer operators to produce the logs (so you'll have somebody to sue), to sue the remailer operators per se (which will become a test of common carriage, unless they back down), or--best of all--to tell your Swiss customers that bizarre rants are the outcome of a society which tolerates free speeech and that they should ignore all posts allegedly written by you unless the posts are coming from your site, or, better, have been digitally signed by you. As Nat Henthoff says, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
I know often you do not respond to mail.... I hope you will drop me a note on this one however.
Also feel free to post this mail to the list if you like. The only reason I didn't cc: it was to the extent that my reply sounded like a personal discussion.
OK, I just saw your last paragraph as I was wrapping this up. I'll add the Cypherpunks list to the distribution. It may be long, but these issues are at least as important as much of what gets posted. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Timothy C. May scripsit
If enough people know that Black Unicorn = Fritz Foobar, then the linkage can be made and the "damage" done. As others have said, you apparently have some uptight customers. That's not my problem, or anyone else's who makes the normal kind of comments on the Net.
I agree on all counts.
(Tmp goes beyond normal, but if your lawsuit was centered around the "damages" aspect, then potentially nearly any of our opinions could be "damaging" because of your overly sensitive European customers. That's not right.)
Where those opinions are cast as fact, and done maliciously I have to disagree with you. Where they are legitimate extentions of argument and discussion, I do.
I'd say you have some sleazy friends, then. For them to fax off copies of what they think of as rants is bad enough, but for one of your contacts to then "alert" the others is mind-boggling.
The context was blurred with each successive forwarding. I might add that as the forwarding went on, it ventured farther into the "business associate" types, and much farther from the "friend" catagory. It's hard to outline without blowing the entire cake, which I'd prefer not to do. Suffice it to say that the distribution was never intended to get as far as it did.
No. You are speaking a truth. My ideas do fall in line with your definition of cryptoanarchy. They do not however make me a radical anarchist bent on the destruction of nations as tmp alleged.
Tmp was just using a label. I'll admit the semi-forgery was not kosher, though these semi-forgeries are transparent to anyone who looks at the headers.
The forgeries, while offensive, were not the main point of contention. The defamation was.
But calling you an anarchist bent on the destruction of nations is acceptable characterization in a political debate. If I say Bill Clinton wants to destroy the health care system, this is normal political rhetoric. If Detweiler calls me a Satanist, so what?
I think this comes down to a basic question of line drawing. We could argue all year on this point and get nowhere, so I will merely state my position and leave it there. Where a person communicates a knowingly false or negligent accusation or characterization about another to a third party, and material damages insue, the communicator is liable in my view. As I have pointed out before, totally anonymous systems make this childish and trival threshold of convience entirely moot. I hope to live to see this day.
("What if your customers were Moral Majority Christians?" you might ask. Then I'd say that all one has to do is tell one's customers the truth.
And this is supposed to convince moral majority christians?
Under no circumstances can the 'damage" caused by tmp's kind of free spech be considered assault.
Again, we just differ here. I understand and respect your opinion, and hope as a practical matter that totally anonymous systems will make this a realpolitik reality.
I'm a free speech absolutist. That the comments tmp made came in a heated forum for such political debate makes it all the more wrong for a lawsuit.)
I've been on the list for some time now, lurking then posting when I had a feel for who read it, and where it went. I never felt threatened by my presence on the list, and never did it occur to me that anyone on the list could or would "out" me to my business associates.
Even if they do, so what? Not to sound angry here, but suppose I speculated that Black Unicorn = Fritz Foobar? Would the "damage" that ensued be my fault? I just don't get it.
Not in so far as you characterized your accusation as an opinion. This is why there is so much "to do" in libel law about newspapers printing "alleged murderer" and so forth. In theory it's silly. We all know the public reads "murderer" as if the word alleged was never there to begin with. This is a question of damages. How much damage could said accused actually quantify because of this statement? Who knows, probably not much. In addition if there was no intent on the part of the press, there is no case. Free speech is fairly well guarded in this situation. Non-Media antics are another matter, and can be much more damaging.
That the Cypherpunks list is not public--except when it gets gatewayed to Usenet, as has happened a few times--is little protection. If I cite your views--but don't quote them verbatim--in a forum where your Swiss customers see them somehwo, have *I* committed a crime or tort?
Again, it is not my responsibilty to guard myself against defamation. I did to some extent, but to say that because I did not choose an entirely anonymous method that anyone might defame me is to my thinking, silly. On the other hand, those who are enough in the public image are usually given the burden. (Public figure exception) This would also apply to your Clinton example.
Not in my view, though the law may think so. (I still say it's free speech, even if "damaging." Many things are damaging...negative book reviews, unflattering opinions, etc. Sadly, the American legal sytem is moving toward allowing these "damages" to be the basis for suits.)
Book reviews also fall into a public figure catagory. As do most of the tabloids. I agree, there is a problem. What redress is there however for the defamed? Can Joe Blow really call my clients and produce forged evidence that I am a fugitive white collar criminal, destroy my business and hide behind free speech blankets? Again, it's a question of line drawing.
The proper and normal response to accusatory rants is to answer them.
I guess it's my turn to sound angry. When was the last time you answered tmp publically? I don't mean this to be a barb... but I just don't think that direct confrontation is always the answer. As it was, my case was quickly resolved between the parties. How much more free speech can you get? He's welcome to violate the settlement agreement, and I can push a claim again. How likely this is to win in the courts is an issue for legal speculation.
Are you calling for limits on "accusatory rants"? The Founding Fathers would not be amused.
Of course not. Rants and active defamation are two issues much distinct. I simply am exercising my legal rights in so far as I was harmed. As it turned out, tmp corrected the situation and was quite cooperative when we finally talked.
The real difficulty in these affairs is that not to file a suit is often more damning than anything.
I think your reputation would have no lasting damage done to it by ordinary speech. Even so, Detweiler's rants are clearly broad-brushed insults, which courts should not regulate.
Again, we have a line drawing contest here. I just go a little father, I don't even think extensively father. Frankly I don't think U.S. courts go much farther either.
Your uptight Swiss clients should be taught not be believe everything they read.
I should be able to conduct business, without interference, in peace, with whomever, whenever, whatever, and however uptight, as I choose. Period.
A settlement is vindication enough in my case.
Except that Detweiler's "apology" was obvious satire, almost identical to the "apology" he posted to the Cypherpunks last December. He is likely now planning a much more massive assault on you and his other perceived enemies....a campaign of fabricating quotes, arguing with himself via different pseudonyms, etc.
The settlement was much more extensive then a mere public retraction.
And now that he knows your uptight Swiss customers are so sensitive, he will probably try to find ways to let them know about your "anarchist" leanings.
And to the extent that he does so anonymously, I will have no redress. I accept this.
If he's as smart as I think he is, he'll use the network of remailers. He'll also try to fabricate quotes that make you seem like a truly vicious money launderer, perhaps with insinuations that your furniture business is a cover for drug trafficking. (If I were Detweiler, licking my wounds, plotting revenge, that's what I'd do.)
Again, I accept this as a possibility. As for the drug trafficking, since truth is an absolute defense to libel, I will have no case.
If this happens, as I predict it will, your recourse will be to either try to force the remailer operators to produce the logs (so you'll have somebody to sue), to sue the remailer operators per se (which will become a test of common carriage, unless they back down),
I will not sue an overseas remailer like Julf. I will be tempted to ask a local one if tmp is indeed breaking a legitimate settlement agreement, I will not sue if I am refused.
or--best of all--to tell your Swiss customers that bizarre rants are the outcome of a society which tolerates free speeech and that they should ignore all posts allegedly written by you unless the posts are coming from your site, or, better, have been digitally signed by you.
Easier said than done. Luckly I believe I have this taken care of.
As Nat Henthoff says, "sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Indeed.
--Tim May
-- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
[...] -- 073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est 6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa - wichtig!
C'punks, I am surprised that many of you, including Tim, have completely failed to examine the basic premise upon which the Unicorn suit rests. No one has called into question the dubious concept of "defamation." Black Unicorn and I have been having a rousing debate on this point in private e-mail. Maybe it's time for a little more devil's advocacy on this list. For the majority (I think) of you who consider yourselves to be "libertarians," where is TMP's violation of the principle of "non-initiation"? Don't answer to quickly, words of art have specific meanings. (Black Unicorn, this is a clue.) For those of other political stripes, what's so bad about defamation? I know most of you don't like it, but is their any philosophical or logical bases for your antipathy? S a n d y
C'punks,
I am surprised that many of you, including Tim, have completely failed to examine the basic premise upon which the Unicorn suit rests. No one has called into question the dubious concept of "defamation."
Huh? Maybe you haven't been seeing my posts (I know *I* haven't, do to mail problems somewhere). I've been arguing just this point, that tmp did not initiate force and that the idea of "defamation" is a wrong-headed idea. "Sticks and stones" and all that. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
C'punks, On Fri, 27 May 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:
I am surprised that many of you, including Tim, . . . blah, blah, blah.
Huh? Maybe you haven't been seeing my posts (I know *I* haven't, do to mail problems somewhere). I've been arguing just this point, that tmp did not initiate force and that the idea of "defamation" is a wrong-headed idea.
"Sticks and stones" and all that.
Duh, sorry Tim, I fucked up. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. S a n d y
<In mail Black Unicorn said:>
Timothy C. May scripsit
I'd say you have some sleazy friends, then. For them to fax off copies of what they think of as rants is bad enough, but for one of your contacts to then "alert" the others is mind-boggling.
The context was blurred with each successive forwarding. I might add that as the forwarding went on, it ventured farther into the "business associate" types, and much farther from the "friend" catagory.
If the context was blurred by each of the people in the chain of friends and associates of yours before the 'uptight business associates' saw it then aren't they as responsible for you defamation as tmp is? Not an attack... I personally agree that lawsuits are acceptable in the right circumstance... merely an observation. Jim -- Tantalus Inc. Jim Sewell Amateur Radio: KD4CKQ P.O. Box 2310 Programmer Internet: jims@mpgn.com Key West, FL 33045 C-Unix-PC Compu$erve: 71061,1027 (305)293-8100 PGP via email on request. 1K-bit Fingerprint: 8E 14 68 90 37 87 EF B3 C4 CF CD 9A 3E F9 4A 73
I will force myself to respond to no more than three of Black Unicorn's points, so as to avoid boring the audience:
("What if your customers were Moral Majority Christians?" you might ask. Then I'd say that all one has to do is tell one's customers the truth.
And this is supposed to convince moral majority christians?
No, but so what? Life isn't always fair. Since at most one religion is right, at least n -1 religions are based on lies, and hence nearly all religious statements are lies, defamations, etc. The connection with free speech is deep and important: saying "Joe Blow is a Satan worshipper" may or may not be true, but it is not the role of the State to define truth. What damages result, say, from my statements that Hebrew National hot dogs are made from the bodies of Christian children and that all good Christians should thus boycott Hebrew National products is unimportant. Like I said, damages (and benefits) occur all around us, but in the absence of a contract or physical aggression, too bad. (If Hebrew National can collect from me for my rantings, then I ought to be able to present them with a bill for saying good things about them!)
What redress is there however for the defamed?
Can Joe Blow really call my clients and produce forged evidence that I am a fugitive white collar criminal, destroy my business and hide behind free speech blankets?
In my admittedly extreme opinion, this is what cryptography will produce: essentially unforgeable identities and messages. Joe Blow will not be able to present himself as you, nor will he be able to convincingly forge evidence. This is actually the "anarchic" situation we see all around us, in parties, in office conversations, etc. Even on this list. People make outrageous claims (we call it gossip) and some claims are believed, some are not. Often the gossipmongers who make the most bogus claims find their credibility has evaporated. Where I differ from many, but am in agreement with the mainstream of anarchocapitalist thought (cf. David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" or Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law"), is that I don't believe businesses/corporations have any different set of laws applying to them than to individuals. That is, if gossip is not to be "outlawed" between a group like ours, it shouldn't be if I hire someone, or hire 100, or hire 10,000. One set of rules for all scales. There's much to be said about this point; maybe another time.
I guess it's my turn to sound angry. When was the last time you answered tmp publically? I don't mean this to be a barb... but I just don't think
About two weeks ago, to expand on a point he made. In general, I have no interest in defending myself against fools who claim I am the spawn of Satan, a pedophilic sodomite, an anarchist bomb-thrower, or a Tentacle of Medusa. Anyone foolish to believe rants like that _deserves_ to believe such rants! In something that may resonate in a strange way with your Swiss friends, I call this "libertarian Calvinism." Not only should one not interfere with one's neighbors lifestyle choices, as a practical matter, but to interfere is to deny that person the ability to make a moral choice. Thus, if your neighbor drinks himself into a stupor, or believes foolish nonsense about Tentacles and Snakes, then so be it. (Another version: Niven and Pournelle's "Think of it as evolution in action.") In the context of "defamation," those who believe lies and won't listen to "reason" (my side) are best met with shrugs. Not perfect, but better than the alternatives of initiating force against them. In the marketplace of ideas, all one can do is present ideas and products as best one can. If competitors "lie" and "defame," that's life. Ultimately, those who choose to buy a Yugo instead of a Toyota, based on "lies" about quality, will learn. The truth will out, because the truth produces greater ultimate fitness (the Toyota is a a better deal than the Yugo) and the incentives move the market in this direction. (A lot more to be said here....this is only the tip of the iceberg on how free markets work even in the presence of "noise.") To paraphrase a book title (which I refuse to read), "Everthing I needed to know about free speech I learned in the phrase 'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.'" Call me a free speech absolutist, but I believe that. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."
participants (4)
-
Black Unicorn -
Jim Sewell -
Sandy Sandfort -
tcmay＠netcom.com