Microsoft Trial Judge Based His Break-Up "Remedy" On Flawed Theory, Not Facts

[David Stultz]

> 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 at ssz.com
>        www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
>                            -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>