[81545] in Cypherpunks
Re: Fraud and free speech
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Frantz)
Tue Jun 10 12:38:39 1997
In-Reply-To: <v03102804afc0fc8e1db0@[207.167.93.63]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:06:38 -0700
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>, cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
From: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
Reply-To: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>
At 5:27 PM -0700 6/8/97, Tim May wrote:
>(Oh, and it almost goes without saying that the same "lies" William and
>others are so worried about in "commercial" speech happen all the time in
>non-commerical speech. For every example of where commercial speech
>involves lies or fraud, I can find similar or fully equivalent
>non-commercial examples, ranging from lies like "I love you" to get a
>partner into bed to deliberate misstatements to mislead an opponent. Why
>should such "lies" be protected while putatively commercial speech is to be
>subjected to an increasing number of limitations?)
The only justification I can think of off hand is that a presumption of
truth may make for more efficient markets. On the other hand, it also has
very bad effects when applied to political speech.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz | The Internet was designed | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506 | to protect the free world | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | from hostile governments. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
