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.

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. --dave On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz 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.

Speech can't violate rights, only acts against another can. Speech is not an act against another.

Unconstitutional restrictions on speech that is. If there is a fire and I don't yell have I commited a crime? If I yell fire and everyone does nothing was a crime commited?

Let's take your example, it only applies if people are in the theatre AND they react as if there were a fire. But is it the safety of the theatre inhabitants we're concerned about? Clearly not since there are more than sufficient legal and civil recoveries for both the theatre owner and the patrons if their rights are infringed.

The reality is that causing a riot, via speech or some other mechanism, isn't protected by the 1st. The argument to forward is a straw-man, they want to regulate speech when it is convenient to their ends and they hope nobody notices they're pulling a fast one to do it. So what they have is a nice tasting argument so that you'll accept A PRIORI restraint on speech.

____________________________________________________________________

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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).

Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? ;)

You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation.

Heh. Maybe ridicule wasn't the right word. I can take a joke, ridicule is ok. I guess a better word would have been "unjustified slander" (OK, that's two). Satire and ridicule are good things, and are protected...this is good. But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me. - Dave "big old asshole" Stultz On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, 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?

But that's not the speech but the consequence of the speech. No, you should be held to an a priori 'no lie' standard. But if by that lie you are damaging, and intent should aggravage the crime, another person by the change in behaviour of anonymous 3rd parties then how is holding the speaker accountable for those consequences a limit on their speech? How does that justify saying 'you can't lie'? Aren't there times when lying is the only way not to hurt persons (rare as it is, if it exists we must allow that if we hold that hurting people is wrong).

...

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.

You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation. It's not the speech that should be punished, it should be my acting with intent to harm. That speech might be involved is really irrelevant.

...

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.

As long as it exists the work is not done.

It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).

____________________________________________________________________

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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not adopt this banal convention on this list. Much bandwidth is wasted by people arguing about invocation of Godwin's Law and inventing their own variants (such as May's Lemma, that more bandwidth is wasted....).

Whatever. Lets not be too serious.

If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually.

Never said I was an expert. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:

At 11:23 PM -0500 2/27/01, David Stultz wrote:

...

...

It's worth observing that to Hitler, he made sense. (and no, I am NOT drawing any sort of conclusion, simply saying the 'I and I' is not the end all).

Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread? ;)

Let's not adopt this banal convention on this list. Much bandwidth is wasted by people arguing about invocation of Godwin's Law and inventing their own variants (such as May's Lemma, that more bandwidth is wasted....).

...

...

You're an asshole (not really, keep reading). Ridicule is political speech and should be protected. Now my stating to another 3rd party that you're a baby raper and as a consequence you lose your business is a whole other situation.

Heh. Maybe ridicule wasn't the right word. I can take a joke, ridicule is ok. I guess a better word would have been "unjustified slander" (OK, that's two). Satire and ridicule are good things, and are protected...this is good.

But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.

If you are this easily persuaded, and come at "free speech" with such confusion, you have a lot of reading ahead of you. I envy you, actually.

--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

Data points: I got two literate and charming off-list messages in connection with that moron who wanted advice on committing federal crimes in connection with cellular phone conversations not involving him. They were: ----- Original Message ----- From: mike patton <mpatton@kiva.net> To: <djb@gci.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:38 PM Subject: Trolling for Conspirators fuck u =================== And: ----- Original Message ----- From: mike patton <mpatton@kiva.net> To: <djb@gci.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 8:39 PM Subject: Trolling for Conspirators whats wrong

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, David Stultz wrote:

But now, I am beginning to see what you are saying. We shouldn't blame *speech* for the result of speech. It's the *result* of said speech that should be the grounds of wrongness. Makes sense to me.

Ding Ding :) ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.

Somehow I feel that my position (although now I see that I was wrong), was a Nazi-related view. That and I was only partially serious. Dave On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, James A. Donald wrote:

-- At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote:

...

Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread?

It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.

--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 61pwOMBLpml48FZUTWwMfoIW0QLabj+EyTeP1ANH 4uUgcgY8zfUFGh64CZnHVOygyvbOYBzvlFTQH48nZ

At 11:12 PM 2/27/01 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:

At 11:23 PM 2/27/2001 -0500, David Stultz wrote:

...

Isn't there some sort of rule where at the first mention of "Hitler" or "Nazi", it's the end of the thread?

It appears to me that this rule is most commonly invoked by those whose ideology and program has a marked resemblance to Nazism, and derives from Nazi philosophers.

I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. Claims that it is a debate-ender are add-ons. Reese

Ken Brown wrote:

...

I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.

don't think so. it's a good observation, and most likely better than yours unless we talk about infinities. there are libraries full of books where neither nazis or hitler are even mentioned. yet usenet debates DO converge on those topics with surprising pace. most likely a psychological thing - the search for a recent, extreme and well-known example or counter-example to your point. in the middle ages, one would've used witchcraft and satan instead.

Tim, I know Mike Godwin. I've e-mailed Mike Godwin. And, Tim, you're no Mike Godwin. ;-) Aimee Somebody said:

I went to groups.google.com and did a search for usenet posts using the word "nazi" http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nazi

Every single hit among the first page of hits was an appropriate and relevant use of the word nazi,

...

...

...

...

...

This was incorrect: Eight of the first ten posts were appropriate uses of the word "nazi". Two were inappropriate. <snip>

FWD: -------- Even if 99 percent of all references to Nazis on the Internet were appropriate and in-context, that would not prove anything, one way or the other, as far as Godwin's Law is concerned -- anyone who says Feel free to quote me on this. Moreover, the statistical truth of Godwin's Law is beside the point, which is to alert readers and writers to invidious comparisons, and to the need to remember the gravity of what the Nazis did. <snippage> --Mike -------------------------------------------------------------------- "I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...." --Walt Whitman Mike Godwin can be reached by phone at 202-637-9800 His book, CYBER RIGHTS, can be ordered at http://www.panix.com/~mnemonic . --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 7:51 PM -0600 3/1/01, Aimee Farr wrote:

...

Tim, I know Mike Godwin. I've e-mailed Mike Godwin. And, Tim, you're no Mike Godwin.

PLONK

--Tim May

His words. I admit it, I prevailed on him to rescue me from your affections. My plan seems to have backfired, as he knew it would. I'm a chew toy. -Aimee

Declan wrote:

This is a very, very strange statement.

It takes just a moment to remember that Aimee is allegedly based in Waco, TX, though probably with a TLA in Fort Worth -- Texas TLAs never stop joking about Waco to hide their own addiction problems. Choate is in Austin, TX, when he's not electromagnetically rocketing around the stars. Mike Godwin's Texas background is a disturbing, if pleasurable, fact. The EFF dustup was rooted in hypersensitive sensibilities about a party's birthplace. It's the water, Declan, the water in Texas has stuff in it that drives natives to say, to write, to behave in odd ways. The smiles of Texans are not signs of friendliness but evidence of contaminated ground water. Scientists can find no difference in the ground water and white lightning. I'm a Texan. Like Texas, the water in DC, the water is New York City, in California, the East and West Coast, some say the New World, is laced with something that induces crazed, condescending braggartly superiority, the urge to never lose an argument that's winnable by lying, by denying that's what you said, wrote, did. To shoot if nothing else wins. This is not about superpower foreign policy.

-- At 07:51 PM 3/1/2001 -0600, Aimee Farr wrote:

the need to remember the gravity of what the Nazis did.

But those invoking Godwin's law seldom do so because the gravity of Nazi crimes is being depreciated by some comparison. Rather their objection is that because the nazi crimes were uniquely wicked, and X is not uniquely wicked, a comparison of nazis with X does not apply -- in other words that the evil of the nazis was unique, so we need learn no lessons from history. Of course the evil of the nazis was far from unique, it was merely one of the larger of many similar twentieth century crimes -- the armenians, the kulaks, and so on and so forth. The evil of the nazis is not unique. Over and over again the same causes led to the same consequences, and the only way we can stop it from happening again and again is to pay attention. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 8rIOv31R23cArTvRP+H4laJZ238RGzPRQ2IRgEtB 4zcsqJRIcD4yw6m1CUsBQdve3IYrCPh0H5rin15wo

"James A. Donald" wrote:

You are full of shit.

what a glorious argument. I withdraw all my comments in light of these incredible rhetoric powers.

At 3:39 PM +0100 3/1/01, Tom wrote:

Ken Brown wrote:

...

...

I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.

don't think so. it's a good observation, and most likely better than yours unless we talk about infinities. there are libraries full of books where neither nazis or hitler are even mentioned. yet usenet debates DO converge on those topics with surprising pace. most likely a psychological thing - the search for a recent, extreme and well-known example or counter-example to your point. in the middle ages, one would've used witchcraft and satan instead.

A very good point. Nazis and Hitler are one of the "benchmarks" for evil that most of us agree upon, regardless of our various political beliefs. (Not counting a small segment which supports Hitler and Nazism.) Thus, it's a "Schelling point" for people to compare things to, a common reference point that all participants are likely to have knowledge of. Hence the wide use of comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis, hence Godwin's Law. Tom is right that in earlier centuries the comparisons would have been to Satan and witches and suchlike. Another such Schelling point is Big Brother, and the general language of George Orwell in "1984" (a novel which has given us _so many_ rich and illustrative additions to the English language, including, off the top of my head: Big Brother, thoughtcrime, war is peace, freedom is slavery, proles, we have always been at war with Oceania, Ministry of Truth, ignorance is strength, doublethink, doubleplusungood, Brin-style surveillance cameras in homes and flats, and several other rich images). Other common reference points are references to Christ, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire, and so on. And World War II in general. We refer to images out of history and religion as part of our common heritage of ideas and beliefs. (By the way, without _defending_ World War II in any way, it was _such_ a watershed period, such a seminal event, that one can only look back in awe at what happened. The development of technology (radar, manufacturing methods, jet aircraft, computers, the atom bomb, etc.), the realignment of the political map, the whole division between pre-war and post-war systems. It was the defining political, economic, military, and historical event of the past century, probably the past two centuries. All things stand in the shadow of the Second World War.) I believe there are many valid ways to refer to the Nazis and Hitler without some knee jerk invocation of Godwin's Law. (I haven't talked to Mike in several years, but I expect he would agree that Godwin's Law is often, even usually, invoked in a knee-jerk way.) --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

At 11:02 AM 3/1/01 +0000, Ken Brown wrote:

Reese wrote:

...

I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File: As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Of course, as any text grows longer the probability that it contains any other text approaches one... just more or less slowly. Godwin's law needs some quantification.

Perhaps there are simply more National Socialists out there than recognize that fact. ........ A sociologist was interviewing a southern farmer: Why do you think the murder rate is higher in the south? I guess more southerners need killin'.

At 01:21 AM 3/3/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:

On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 07:47:08PM -1000, Reese wrote:

...

I don't think Godwin would agree. Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin (godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions".

Mike has been gone from EFF for some years.

The page I pulled that bit of text is still on the web. The Law remains valid. *shrug* Reese

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

Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'. It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes it a hard sell for obvious reasons. On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:

A typo. That should be "polycentric law," as in "multiple centers."

____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 12:32 AM -0600 2/28/01, Aimee Farr wrote:

Jim said:

...

Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'.

It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes it a hard sell for obvious reasons.

Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They ran a _private legal system_. Later, we saw the rise of the Law Merchant standards. If you broke the rules, you were out. It runs on reputation capital. Polycentric law is the order of the society. Most of the cypherpunk memes here are going to require the equivalent of the Maghribi traders.

Code and other laws of cyberspace (Lessig, et. al.) are pointing out that the Net has developed a society where one person can be subject to many legal systems. A legal system is not just a state-sanctioned court. Now, these two legal systems are competing. The static legal system is trying avidly to address and stamp out it's new competitor. But there will always be a place for the Maghribi (although the traditional role of a lawyer is now very much in question) where the law does not go, or where it is inefficient.

Coming from a traditionalist legal culture, I'm probably the worst person to talk about it. My understanding is that this is an old cypherpunk topic.

Yes, we used to talk about this kind of stuff a lot. We had a few people very interested in this kind of stuff in the early days. People like Hal Finney, Robin Hanson, Nick Szabo, myself. Alas, most are long since gone. Polycentric law is still with us, of course. One hundred or more nations, law of the seas, the UCC, etc. Anarchy is the norm in most parts of our lives. However, Aimee, your summary here is very good. I'm pleasantly surprised. Debating with Choate is not useful, however. --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

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:

Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They ran a _private legal system_. Later, we saw the rise of the Law Merchant standards. If you broke the rules, you were out. It runs on reputation capital. Polycentric law is the order of the society. Most of the cypherpunk memes here are going to require the equivalent of the Maghribi traders.

Is it? Muslims and Christian traders really didn't use 'private law' in the way we would use it today. Why? Because we are not primarily ruled by our religous beliefs. The reason these examples aren't good ones is they aren't what makes polycratic law polycratic, a bunch of independent EQUAL authorities, they weren't. They all shared a common base infrastructure. This is the same sort of near-miss as the Icelandic anarchist claims that raise their heads once upon a while around here. This raises the primary problem with polycratic law, and one which is clearly evident in the Third Reich, they aren't economic. They each end up fighting for the same scraps and that takes resources better spend for the good of society. It's like watching a pack of hungry dogs fight over the same scraps.

Code and other laws of cyberspace (Lessig, et. al.) are pointing out that the Net has developed a society where one person can be subject to many legal systems. A legal system is not just a state-sanctioned court. Now, these two legal systems are competing. The static legal system is trying avidly to address and stamp out it's new competitor. But there will always be a place for the Maghribi (although the traditional role of a lawyer is now very much in question) where the law does not go, or where it is inefficient.

Actually Lessig is wrong for very one important reason, Open Source software. The real question is whether the people out there will recognize it in time. People are building a technical and physical infra-structure that isn't dependent upon the 'official' technical standards. We are reaching a level of societal complexity where individuals are now abandoning centralized specialization because they have the tools to do many jobs themselves. Law can't be efficient, not in its job description. Law isn't primarily an economic factor (which must be crushing to those cryto-anarchist and free-market mavens that live for the almight God dollar). Law is supposed to be JUST. That it provides equal protection under the law is sufficient. Besides the 'effeciency' of a legal system is irrelevent since it isn't auto-catalytic (ie courts don't make law). The efficiency, if there is any such beast to be had, is in the legislature. Efficiency is not making bad laws in the first place. There is NOTHING in polycratic law that promises to resolve this issue in any manner.

Coming from a traditionalist legal culture, I'm probably the worst person to talk about it. My understanding is that this is an old cypherpunk topic.

Yes, but one which even the old hats haven't resolved. Though some of them will squeel mightily about how 'resolved' it is, references to the archives and such. People have spent their whole lives educating and being educated about centralized homogenous government. What's interesting, at least in this country, is we're actually going backward, lowering the bar. The Declaration of Independence guarantees individual liberty, and we hand it over to a bunch of fat old political farts on a court with way too much authority. An example is the discussion over speech the last couple of days, what amazes me is these people say it's 'my point' when in fact it's the fundamental under-pinning of their very country. AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT. In a very real sense the American democratic experiment has failed. It's first death blow was Lincolns inaugural address and the second was the creation of 'artificial people' (ie corporations) for economic reasons in 1870. The first decision killed the Declaration of Independence and the second moved 'rights' from the venue of people to the venue and control of government (in direct contravention to the Constitution, for those who want to argue the opposite please explain where 'business' or 'economic concern' is in the 9th Amendment). ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

At 08:41 PM 2/27/01 -0800, Tim May wrote:

At 8:32 PM -0800 2/27/01, Tim May wrote:

...

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.

A typo. That should be "polycentric law," as in "multiple centers."

--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

Susan I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain, just so I could eat veggies! <ssmall@stny.rr.com>

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

Well, it's more like the Nazi's are allowed to march in Jewish neighborhoods under court orders protecting their right to free speech -- which has happened -- it's disgusting, yes, but still has to be allowed to protect everyone's free speech. Note that M$ doesn't believe in free speech for others, however, as we recently saw with them lobbying Congress to do something about "un-American open source" software. David Stultz 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.

On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 11:46:58AM -0800, 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.

I'll go further. The First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution, and antitrust law is not. When the two are in conflict, the law must give way. :) (This is pretty much in jest, you antitrust scholars note. Yes, I have read media antitrust cases, etc.) -Declan

Microsoft won because of superior reviews? Come on, how stupid do you think we are? So if a company pays for glowing reviews that would be okay?

Matthew's argument is that 'network effects' do not exist, based on a tendentious piece of propaganda pushed by a right wing crank tank. The crank tank is attempting to proove that the free market is perfect, unsullied by the possibility of monopoly that obviously ignorant writers such as Adam Smith wrote at great length about. Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology. Positive feedback exists, get over it.

Obviously they have never tried to sell a product. It's very dificult to get consideration such that you could prove the technical merits when there is a large existing supplier.

That is only a weak network effect. People buy from Amazon because they have a well known brand name, have established a customer reputation etc. But there is no intrinsic advantage buying from a large online bookseller than a medium sized one. There is a big advantage having a VHS video over Betamax however. If you have VHS you can rent movies from stores, you can send tapes to friends who have equipment to play it. The fact that a modern day VHS recorder is technicaly superior to any Betamax machine made is irrelevant. At the time the standard was set Sony and Betamax had the clearly superior technology. A network effect exists when there is an intrinsic advantage to join the bigger network. Operating systems have been understood to have strong network effects since the 1950s. My company only supports one version of UNIX for certain products because the cost of QA on each O/S variant is significant. If we were choosing the technically best O/S platform we would probably look at of the stripped down, hardened BSD variants, but we choose the platform that most of our customers are already familliar with - Solaris. When I wrote video-games for a living I wrote for the Sinclair ZX Spectrum with a market of several million users, not the vastly more sophisticated BBC computer - even though the spectrums would die after about 100 hours use and need replacement. I would typically replace a spectrum three or four times within the guarantee period. Writing a game for the bigger market gave bigger returns. Customers bought the machines supported by the most games. Network effects are the alpha and the omega of Internet business strategy. Ironically despite paying for the tendentious propaganda Microsoft appears to be benefitting from the argument that network effects and 'tipping' explain the emergence of a single operating system. I don't know if the DoJ should interpret recent events in Seatle as a divine attempt to breakup Microsoft. If so it is really time for the DoJ to give up since it evidently failed. Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

[...]

...

Hence the anecdotes such as QWERTY, Betamax are attacked as if they were the best evidence, the sole evidence even for network effects. This is historical revisionism in the service of dogmatic ideology.

Positive feedback exists, get over it.

Surely the classic network effect is railway gauge?

And about as hard to deny as the sun rising in the east.

Ken

The crank tank probably dismisses it as being determined mainly by government regulation. Most railway acts had a guage clause. However in the UK the vastly superior broad guage was converted to narrow precisely because of network effects. The crank tank is asking me to distinguish between 'path dependence' (a term I have not used) and 'network externalities'. This is clearly a tactical ploy to try to move the argument to their definitions. It is an Oxford Union debating trick for folk with a weak cause. The original argument was addressed to a public audience. If the crank tank 'Independent Institute' cannot justify their claim in public language they are clearly frauds and should retreat to the house litterature they publish their whacky theories in. The claim the economic effects can only be understood by experts in the field is made to foreclose debate. They want to claim that you and me and everyone on the list that does not agree with them do so out of ignorance. Oh by the way they get to decide who is an expert. The Institute for Historical Reform and the Creationism Study Institute use the same tactic. Phill

I've got a terminology gap here. Somewhere along the line I seem to have conflated "network effects" with the notion that the maraginal cost of any addition to a network will typically be less then the value to the network of that addition. (Yes, "typically" is important, to avoid lumpiness quibbles, such as "a whole new server is a whole new server for one added user," but let's don't quibble.) It sounds like what we're talking about here involves what I would have thought of more as "network externalities." Education, please? MacN On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:

Phill gets it halfway right, or put another way is halfway wrong.

The question is not whether network effects exist or not; clearly they do in some form. Better questions include whether they have produced inferior results than "someone" desires, how strong they are, and whether state intervention is a good idea because of their alleged ill effects.