CDR: Re: free speech children michigan law

[Tim May]

At 8:45 AM -0400 9/27/00, Steve Furlong wrote:
>
><grin> In the year or so I've been posting on c-punks, you have several
>times mentioned that I had a good point but not once had you suggested
>that I should be killed. I was starting to feel left out.
>
>I do not think the woman should be filing suit. She should have ignored
>the boor or, if her command of invective sufficed, told him off
>scathingly. I do, however, support the right of people to take matters
>to civil court if they truly feel they have been wronged. I'd prefer to
>see a loser-pays system to prevent or compensate for frivolous claims,
>as this claim would be likely to prove.

The point being that civil cases for damages should not be allowed 
for NONCRIMINAL issues. That is, a "matter of law" should be involved.

Example: a bookstore owner sues because another bookstore moved in 
across the street from him and "hurt his business."

There is no violation of any law, so it doesn't even matter whether 
the original bookstore was "hurt." No lawsuit possible.

Example: a woman feels insulted by the language of another.

No violation of any law, so no lawsuit possible.

I'm shocked that you were blathering on about the woman filing a 
civil suit for something such as "intentional infliction of emotional 
distress."

In fact, I plan to file a civil action against you for this shock to my system.

(Seriously, I say you should GET THE FUCK out of this law school you 
are now in. Too many damned lawyers as it is. If you really think, as 
you claimed a few weeks ago, that you can study law and then somehow 
affect the law/programming worlds, pace the various legal cases of 
recent years, then you're delusional. Vastly greater changes are 
possible with technology.)



>
>The _main_ point I wanted to make was that the state had no business
>interfering here. The anti-swearing law is nonsensical, unenforceable,
>and almost definitely unConstitutional. Disturbing the peace charges, if
>they should exist at all, should be reserved for matters of greater
>import than making a rude gesture at one woman. I concede that my
>previous post didn't make my point well, if at all.

Suing in the courts for having one's sensibilities hurt, allegedly, 
is even worse.

I'd rather the gubment scum made the speech illegal, up front, than 
allowing such suits to go forward. We are daily losing our liberties 
to creeps like the zionists who use the Southern Poverty Law Center 
to suppress speech they dislike. With the help of people exactly like 
you.

That you are encouraging the process of using civil action tells me 
you will make a fine lawyer.

Disgusting.


--Tim May
-- 
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.