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

[alfee cube]

jeme i hardly know where to begin but let me try:)


--- Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.
=============================
you cannot get very far with this logic (every person
is "perfectly happy" to fine and punish people who
speak what they to not like. in your case people who
yell lookout behind another individual.
==============================
> 
> 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.
>
======================================
i'm certain every proponent of constraining speech
shares your assertion. if the individual could reason
their way to the conclusion they were limiting speech
for illegitimate reasons they would not feel compelled
to limit speech in the first place.

why do you think libel is a legitimate reason to
restrict speech? it seems pretty silly to me - if
someone libels me i can speak out in my defense - why
do i have to limit your speech?

leaving aside whether commercial speech is in fact
speech at all - why do i have to restrict a
corporations speech? why can't i just test their
speech and if untrue speak that?

what you assert as legitimate reasons i assert are
illegitimate.

============================================
 
> > 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.

==========
you have switch the discussion - of course persons are
"influenced" their surroundings, including speech.
that is exactly why we do not want to constrain
speech!!!
================
> 
> 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.

===================
you have switch the discussion again - actions != (not
equal to) speech - that is the basis for my asserting
speech should not be constrained!!!
====================
> 
> J.
> -- 
>    -----------------
>      Jeme A Brelin
>     jeme at brelin.net
>    -----------------
>  [cc] counter-copyright
>  http://www.openlaw.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com