Confusion about Free Speech

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Tue Feb 27 20:32:17 PST 2001


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 at 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





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list