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

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, alfee cube wrote:
> 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.

It isn't the slippery slope you paint.

There are complex legal "tests", wherein certain criteria must be met for
speech to be restricted.  Our law says that such restrictions must be
"narrowly tailored".

Broad restrictions are bad, narrow restrictions can be good.

Where do you draw the line between expression and action?  I've already
mentioned frightening people off of subway platforms.  What about
threatening a person's safety or property?  Dance is protected
"speech-like" expression.  What about covering my body with mirrors and
dancing beside a freeway, thus blinding motorists?

How about if I sell a hair dryer and claim "New!  Safe in the tub!"?  Is
it really the responsibility of every individual to assess these things
for themselves?

If we are restricted to our personal knowledge and experience and cannot
trust the world around us (and believe me, when the profit-mongers are
unrestricted, they will flood us with so much disinformation, you won't
know whom or what to trust), then we cannot grow beyond an individual's
experience.  There is nothing to pass on to the next generation because
nearly all of what we share is bullshit.

There are narrowly tailored restrictions that prevent total disruption of
civilization by a few.

> 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?

Because I am a powerful publisher or a cartel of powerful publishers and
if I can say whatever I like in my papers, I can spread lie and rumor and
innuendo without threat of recourse.  And you, with your meager resources
and pitifully small voice have no effective recourse.

There is also our responsibility to the future.  Our documents of today
must reflect the best truth we know so as not to mislead and misdirect
those who come later and who need to learn from our words and deeds.

> 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?

Because you do not have the voice that they have.  You cannot be heard.

> what you assert as legitimate reasons i assert are illegitimate.

Your cure is worse than your disease.

Now, I believe that the DMCA won't stand up to the legal tests of narrow
tailoring that any speech restriction must endure.  I believe that if the
judicial system fails us in this, then we are obligated as individuals to
rise up and replace our government with one that better serves the
interests of the public.

I think there are only a handful of "root causes" that can be eliminated
to achieve a more just and human-oriented society.  I think we must
reverse our holding that corporations receive the rights and protections
of indivduals under the law.  I think we must severely scale back (if not
completely eliminate) our copyright and patent laws.  And I think we must
provide for the public funding of election campaigns (with comensurate
criminal penalties and civil responsibility for those who would ignore
election rules).

I think that the legislation and treaties of the past ten years have done
more to harm freedom of indivduals and the sovereignty of nations than all
the legislation of the previous 200.

> 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!!!

No switch, here.  I'm describing my justification for the conclusion that
some limits on speech are responsible and ethical.

My argument is that a person is responsible for the influence they wield.  
Part of that influence is their speech and part of that responsibility
includes civil or ciminal liability when it is ignored.

> > 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!!!

I didn't switch the discussion here, either.  This is where I undermine
your assumption that speech is not an action.

Speaking IS an action.  Talking is doing.  Writing is doing.  Speaking is
exerting influence and you are responsible for your negative influence.  
In some limited cases, that responsibility might extend to a criminal
liability or a civil legal action.  It is up to our judicial system to
provide for justice and make those calls case by case.  And it is up to
us, as citizens, to keep our judicial system's concept of justice in line
with our society's values.

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