Re: The Esther Dyson Flap

At 08:11 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>Esther Dyson says that anonymity on the Net can do more damage than
>anonymity in other forums, and thus may need to be regulated and restricted
>in various ways. I disagree, as "the Net of a Million Lies" (to use Vinge's
>term) has grown up with anonymity, and few people take the anonymous (or
>not) rants and charges made in the millions per day with the same degree of
>certainty they take print comments. Put another way, there is no clear and
>present danger.

Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as "slander" and "libel" 
precisely because they cause more harm than good.  Currently, there is an 
illusion among ordinary citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him 
for libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical.  In that way, 
the law actually adds credibility to what should be an incredible claim.  
Eliminate libel suits, and you've eliminated any presumption that because 
it's been spoken or is in print, it's likely to be correct.




Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com> writes:

> At 08:11 PM 9/2/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
> >Esther Dyson says that anonymity on the Net can do more damage than
> >anonymity in other forums, and thus may need to be regulated and restricted
> >in various ways. I disagree, as "the Net of a Million Lies" (to use Vinge's
> >term) has grown up with anonymity, and few people take the anonymous (or
> >not) rants and charges made in the millions per day with the same degree of
> >certainty they take print comments. Put another way, there is no clear and
> >present danger.
> 
> Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as "slander" and "libel" 
> precisely because they cause more harm than good.  Currently, there is an 
> illusion among ordinary citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him 
> for libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical.  In that way, 
> the law actually adds credibility to what should be an incredible claim.  
> Eliminate libel suits, and you've eliminated any presumption that because 
> it's been spoken or is in print, it's likely to be correct.

The gubment has no right to fuck with any speech - (seditius) libel, child
porn, bomb-making instructions... 

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Timothy C. May writes:

 > Indeed, I support the elimination of concepts such as
 > "slander" and "libel" precisely because they cause more harm
 > than good.  Currently, there is an illusion among ordinary
 > citizens that "if that was untrue, you could sue him for
 > libel!" despite the fact that this is rarely practical.  In
 > that way, the law actually adds credibility to what should
 > be an incredible claim. Eliminate libel suits, and you've
 > eliminated any presumption that because it's been spoken or
 > is in print, it's likely to be correct.

Reputation performs this function very well, and without
expensive litigation. That is why there is really no clear and
present danger posed by inacurate information on the Net.

Governments shield themselves far better by promoting conspiracy
theory as a recreational activity than they ever could by
prosecuting people who expose their activities.  Drowning signal
in noise effectively obscures it without lending credence to
material one cannot easily debunk.

As they say on X-Files, "The Truth is Out There..." (Somewhere)

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
>>[excise]
> 
> The gubment has no right to fuck with any speech - (seditius) libel, child
> porn, bomb-making instructions...
> 
Agreed. Otherwise, by a slipery slope argument, they can eventually
supress any form of speech whatsoever.
> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps