[free-sklyarov] [DMCA_discuss] CNET - Security workers: Copyright law stifles

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, alfee cube wrote:
> yes - but when we succeed in classifying code as 100%
> speech how do we reason with those (such as the 2600
> trial judge and others) who believe you can constrain
> speech based on the likely outcome(s) that speech may
> produce? (ie the famous but asinine statement that you
> cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.)

Well, context is important here.  We're talking about a time and place
when theaters had one, small exit and theater fires killed hundreds of
people every year.

> it seems to me you must go further than classifying
> code as 100% speech and assert that speech can never
> be constrained because speech in and of itself does
> not produce outcomes!

Not true.

Speech can and should be restricted in very specific ways.

For example: It should be illegal to walk up behind a person on a subway
platform and shout: "LOOOKOUT!" right behind their head as the train is
coming.  If they are startled and fall down onto the rails, you are quite
responsible.

I'm perfectly happy fining and punishing people who make such speech.

I'm also perfectly happy with the legality of civil suits for slander and
libel.  I believe that commercial speech must be held to the highest
standard of provable and proven truth (else, for the purpose of increasing
profits, whole industries will produce false documents and buy expert
testimonials to promote baseless assertions).

There are legitimate reasons to limit speech.

> stated differently society is currently willing to say
> to dima:
> 
> "you dima, by speaking, have caused another person to 
>  infringe a copyright. (they throw in for profit so it
> has a capitalist flavor, i guess?) therefore, we are
> going to punish you because your speech is the cause
> of that person's infringement"!!
> 
> to make it even more absurd, the same society
> asserting  speech causes outcomes seeks to
> simultaneously assert individuals are responsible for
> their own behavior! (im sure they meant to add, except
> when another person's speech is responsible for that
> behavior?)

I think we have shown, through years of psychological study, that people
are influenced by their surroundings.  To say that a person is not
influenced by what he hears and sees is pure ignorance.

I believe in personal responsibility, but that responsibility extends to
influencing others.  You are responsible for the effects of your
actions... and some of those effects are on the actions of others.

The Germans have a law (or perhaps just legal doctrine) that allows as a
valid defense for any criminal charge the argument that breaking the law
was the rational choice in your situation.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org