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

From: Timothy Bates (tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Date: Mon Mar 01 1999 - 20:15:19 MST


>>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 ;-)

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

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
that enforcing the "no yelling fire" law makes it possible to enforce
community standards laws like "no selling hustler magazine in our town".

I agree with Larry Flynt that the community has no right to dictate
standards about speech of any form.

The "yelling fire" example, however, is different from, say, selling "The
Bell Curve" (reading of which might lead people to believe that so much of
intelligence is genetic that they stop voting for failed head start
programs) and thus violate a (purported) community standard.

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.

So, I say

truth = always protected.
opinion = always protected.
lying = unprotected speech.
soliciting for a crime = unprotected.

cheers,
tim



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