Confusion about Free Speech

[David Stultz]

> 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 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
>