Re: free speech? (was: nuremburg files judgement)

From: Randall Randall (wolfkin@freedomspace.net)
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999 - 23:38:19 MST


I've lately thought that on Mon, 01 Mar 1999, Timothy Bates wrote:
>>>Randall Randall he do say
>>>> I'd want *any* free speech allowed, even "Fire!" in a crowded
>>>> theater... Of course, this would always be covered by contract...
>
>>>> Also, I do not believe that lying should be illegal, when
>>>> it is not fraud (returning no value for value recieved.
>
>too radical for me Randall ;-)

For most, actually. :)

>I think lieing is always fraud (bad information sold as good).

I agree in every case where it *was* sold. That is, it is the
selling that makes it fraud, rather than simple deceit.

>I am confused about the fire in a theatre example. I agree with you that it
>implies you have a contract with people that you may not have and i worry
<snip>

I would say that if it is clear that Joe Excited was not allowed into the
theater unless he agreed not to falsely cry "fire", yelling "fire" is a
violation of contract.

>The difference is that in the latter case you are giving information, in the
>former you are lying and saying what a reasonable man knows will in all
>probability cause serious injury and at the very least ruin a night out for
>150 people etc. etc.

I think that the main difference here is that I see the cause of
(say) Sam's broken leg is the idiot who stepped on him, whereas
it seems that you are saying that said idiot was not a cause,
that he is not responsible for his own actions, and that Joe Excited
(who yelled "fire!") *is*, even though he was across the room and
had no control over the idiot's behavior.

I agree that it is dispicable to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, and
not nice besides, but I don't think that it should be illegal by *default*,
but only by contract.

>So, I say
>
>truth = always protected.
>opinion = always protected.

Okay.

>lying = unprotected speech.

I would say, only when exchanged for value in expectation
of truth.

>soliciting for a crime = unprotected.

I would say, only if solicitor contracts to be liable
for her agent's actions...

--
Wolfkin.
wolfkin@freedomspace.net | Libertarian webhost? www.freedomspace.net
On a visible but distant shore, a new image of man;
The shape of his own future, now in his own hands.-- Johnny Clegg.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:12 MST