At 12:13 PM -0700 5/11/01, Ryan Sorensen wrote:
>* Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010511]:
>
> > Speech acts are only _very_ rarely either crimes or torts. Very
>> rarely. Recent trends toward criminalizing and "tortizing" new
>> classes of speech should not be welcomed here.
>>
>>
>> --Tim May
>
>Just so I'm clear, and not missing something obvious here...
>What speech acts *should* qualify as criminal in nature?
>(I refuse to accept the authority of the Supreme Court as final
>regarding morality,
>as seems to be the popular trend lately.)
Under the right circumstances, the old chestnut about "falsely
shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater" is one such example. (Though
the SC author Holmes said later that he regretted ever using the
example, as it was used frequently to argue for suppression of speech
which came nowhere close to the "clear and present danger" standard.)
But certainly not the "Alice is a homosexual" (whether true or false)
example that Eric Cordian cited, even if Disney then fires her. The
speaker is not responsible for either Alice's homosexuality or lack
thereof or for how Disney chooses to act on rumormongering. (And to
most libertarians, if Alice lacks a solid employment contract with
Disney, they may fire her at will, for any reason, or for no reason,
or for the "wrong" reason.)
Nat Hentoff is a good writer on these topics. Ditto for Mike Godwin.
I don't agree on all points with either, but "what speech should be
illegal or actionable?" is a topic discussed by many writers.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
