Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"

At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:

>I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the
>constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors,
>lawmakers, consumers, etc.
>
>Two recent example:
>
>1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of
>$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping
>of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!)
>on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge
>case.)

        So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless
a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously
be far-reaching ramifications.  For instance, an individual's right to sue
in tort can be cut off.  Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined
class of suits, etc.
        If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the
basis that it is unconstitutional.  That's what happened with CDA -- the
indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts.
>
>2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and
>some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were
>implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence
>the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.)

        The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes
place.  The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government
to restrict speech.  If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do
something, the First Amendment simply does not apply.  But if the coercive
power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get
involved under the First Amendment.
        Here, if the government is too explicit that it will ban certain
speech unless the networks ban it, then a court might find that the
government in fact is involved in an impermissible way.

>The issue, it seems to me, is that ordinary concepts of illegality and
>civil liability are being swept aside in favor of these huge "deals" to
>reduce liability in exchange for various actions. Well, who is bound by
>these deals?
>
>If "Tim's Tobacco Company" starts up next year, after this deal is
>"signed," is his company bound by this deal? If Tim the Smoker develops
>lung cancer, is he blocked from suing?
>

       The basic concepts are pretty clear.  A contract among various
parties binds that group of parties.  A statute of general applicability can
regulate everyone in the jurisdiction.
       The existing tobacco companies can't bind "Tim's Tobacco Company" in
their contract.  However, if they support a bill in Congress, and the
statute is enacted, then their actions might indeed play a role in
restricting your actions later on.

        Peter

Prof. Peter Swire
Ohio State University
College of Law
mailto:swire.1@osu.edu
web: http://www.osu.edu/units/law/swire.htm (in early stages of construction)

At 3:36 PM -0700 7/10/97, Peter Swire wrote:
>At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>
>>I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the
>>constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors,
>>lawmakers, consumers, etc.
>>
>>Two recent example:
>>
>>1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of
>>$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping
>>of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!)
>>on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge
>>case.)
>
>        So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless
>a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously
>be far-reaching ramifications.  For instance, an individual's right to sue
>in tort can be cut off.  Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined
>class of suits, etc.
>        If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the
>basis that it is unconstitutional.  That's what happened with CDA -- the
>indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts.
>
That was my take, too.

IANAL, but I don't see how this "agreement" can possibly work.
Especially since it's not an agreement at all.

Congress will pass a law, and if the tobacco companies don't like
it, (a foregone conclusion, given the posturing going on) they will
sue to overturn it. (And again IMHO, they'll win.)

Then congress will pass another law more to the
tobacco companies liking.

I predict this will not be settled until after Clinton leaves office.

>>2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and
>>some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were
>>implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence
>>the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.)
>
>        The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes
>place.  The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government
>to restrict speech.  If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do
>something, the First Amendment simply does not apply.  But if the coercive
>power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get
>involved under the First Amendment.
>        Here, if the government is too explicit that it will ban certain
>speech unless the networks ban it, then a court might find that the
>government in fact is involved in an impermissible way.
>
What is the (legal) downside to a network (or producer)
saying "No, I won't rate my shows."?
Personally, I'd love to see Disney do this.

-- Marshall

Marshall Clow     Aladdin Systems   <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu>

"In Washington DC, officials from the White House, federal agencies and
Congress say regulations may be necessary to promote a free-market
system." --  CommunicationsWeek International April 21, 1997

A thoughtful response from Peter Swire.

(Note to the lawyers, law professors, and other "reasonable" list readers
out there: We "extremists" might not be so consistently extremist if more
of you would write articles and/or responses. I used to write a lot of
fairly "reasonable" articles...of late I've lost much of my former patience
under the onslaught of major legislative proposals. The lack of articles
from the "reasonable" camp, for whatever reasons (*), has also helped shift
the debate to the more extreme side. (* Maybe they're tired of being
reasonable, too.))

At 3:36 PM -0700 7/10/97, Peter Swire wrote:
>At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>
>>I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the
>>constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors,
>>lawmakers, consumers, etc.
>>
>>Two recent example:
>>
>>1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of
>>$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping
>>of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!)
>>on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge
>>case.)
>
>        So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless
>a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously
>be far-reaching ramifications.  For instance, an individual's right to sue
>in tort can be cut off.  Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined
>class of suits, etc.

Interestingly, the public officials/lawyers fighting the tobacco companies
are making clear statements of what will now happen. I agree that the
Congress has to pass the enabling legislation, blah blah.

But what Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississsippi and the lead
prosecutor/whatever in the Grand Deal, said today is, paraphrasing: "There
will be no more Joe Camel ads, no more Marlboro Man ads, no more ads to
entice smokers."

This certainly sounds to me like a major law enforcement official crowing
about the deal reached. (And he seems to be implying that even companies
not in the Grand Deal will be similarly affected.)

Does this fit with the scenario you described (later in your post) for
evidence that the agreement was not voluntary? And are non-participants in
the Grand Deal to be bound by the legislation Congress will likely pass?
(My answer is the same as yours, I think: the Grand Deal will only be used
to trigger legislation. All companies will of course be bound by this
legislation. Some of the companies or civil liberties groups will sue on
various grounds. Supreme Court outcome unclear.)

>        If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the
>basis that it is unconstitutional.  That's what happened with CDA -- the
>indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts.

The Deal will likely unravel in various ways, except that the worst parts
of it--tightened restrictions on tobacco--will be enacted by Congress.

(I say "worst" in the liberty/freedom of choice sense. Personally, I have
never smoked a single cigarette and think anyone who does is foolish. But
being foolish is everyone's right. Taking away choice is not a solution a
free society can live with. This applies to advertising, which is pure
speech, in my view--the aforementioned point about sponsorship of sporting
events, or print ads, has zero, zip, nada to do with any alleged FCC role
in limiting use of the "public airwaves," so it's a speech issue. There are
possible FTC (advertising claims) and FDA (safety of nicotine if it is
deemed a drug) roles that some could plausibly argue, but these are not
central in the Grand Deal discussions, and are not at all the same as
halting sports advertising, etc. Lots of issues, obviously, and our posts
are only touching on a few facets.)

>>2. The "voluntary ratings" agreement being announced today by Al Gore and
>>some of the television networks. (Earlier "voluntary agreements" were
>>implemented, but, according to supporters of censorship, "failed." Hence
>>the new push for newer voluntary restrictions.)
>
>        The big legal fight on ratings is whether any "state action" takes
>place.  The First Amendment governs efforts by a federal or state government
>to restrict speech.  If private companies "voluntarily" agree to do
>something, the First Amendment simply does not apply.  But if the coercive
>power of the state forces them to do the same thing, then the courts can get
>involved under the First Amendment.

And getting back to the tobacco case,  Mississippi Att. General Mike Moore
seems mighty convinced that this "deal" will result in Joe Camel, the
Marlboro Man, etc., being permanently off the advertising pages of
magazines, off the sporting events, and so on.

If it remains an "industry deal" I see no way it could apply to Tim's
Tobacco Company, who was not a party to any such agreement.

And if Congress passes a law saying that no tobacco company may use cartoon
characters to advertise its products, this seems like a clear case of prior
restraint and dictation of advertising copy. Ditto for sporting events, etc.

A third possibility, and one which deserves a longer essay by someone, is
the role quasi-private organizations play. To cut to the chase,
organizations like the American Bar Association, American Medical
Association, etc.

These "guilds" are an interesting case of self-policing where there is no
option for opting out. (I don't believe it is possible to practice law or
medicine without approval/licensing from these kinds of
organizations/guilds.)

If the AMA cuts a deal with the government, can doctors argue that their
constitutional rights have been infringed upon?

(I can imagine cases where this is so, such as if the AMA adopted a
requirement that doctors speak in English only as a condition for retaining
their licenses. And so on, for other examples. But it is also clear that
these kinds of guilds are usually the preferred route of implementing
policy....)

Licensing in general is something I think is getting out of hand.

--Tim May



There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> A third possibility, and one which deserves a longer essay by someone, is
> the role quasi-private organizations play. To cut to the chase,
> organizations like the American Bar Association, American Medical
> Association, etc.

I think one of the possible scenarios is that all tobacco companies,
present and future, will have to become members of a "private"
self-regulatory organization - sort of like NASD.

> These "guilds" are an interesting case of self-policing where there is no
> option for opting out. (I don't believe it is possible to practice law or
> medicine without approval/licensing from these kinds of
> organizations/guilds.)

It is a CRIME is most jurisdictions.

> Licensing in general is something I think is getting out of hand.

Actually, licensing is a neat idea that leads to more efficient markets.
E.g., New York State licenses plumbers, contractors, barbers, etc; if
you enter into a contract with an unlicensed party for one of these
services, it won't be enforced by the state court. E.g. you can't
sue the unlicensed bricklayer for laying your bricks crooked, and he
can't sue you for not paying. :-) Here the state just says, if you
want our jurisdiction, you play by our rules and you pay a fee.

---

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

At 08:06 AM 7/11/97 EDT, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) wrote:
>Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
>> These "guilds" are an interesting case of self-policing where there is no
>> option for opting out. (I don't believe it is possible to practice law or
>> medicine without approval/licensing from these kinds of
>> organizations/guilds.)
>
>It is a CRIME is most jurisdictions.
>
>> Licensing in general is something I think is getting out of hand.
>
>Actually, licensing is a neat idea that leads to more efficient markets.
>E.g., New York State licenses plumbers, contractors, barbers, etc; if
>you enter into a contract with an unlicensed party for one of these
>services, it won't be enforced by the state court. E.g. you can't
>sue the unlicensed bricklayer for laying your bricks crooked, and he
>can't sue you for not paying. :-) Here the state just says, if you
>want our jurisdiction, you play by our rules and you pay a fee.

How does this make for a more "efficient" market?  All I see is increased
costs of doing business (paying for the licensing), and increased costs to
the consumer (hiring a licensed contractor).  The benefit?  You're allowed
to invite the government into disputes.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the theory behind licensing.  It implies
that the licenseholder is proficient at his or her task (or at least was
when the license was granted.)  This can be important to public safety, in
that a shoddy electrician could cause a fire that could burn an entire
block, or that a hygenically-challenged barber could transmit nasty virii
via unsterilized scissors.  

Public Safety is therefore served.  But where does the efficiency come from?

--

The self-policing guilds Tim mentions above exist because even the law
recognizes that it is unable to adequately define the boundaries within
which a physician must operate.  (You'd think lawyers would be able to get
it down legally on paper, but then there'd be no more need for congress
(spit) and they'd be out of jobs...)  They take on the function of an
electrician's license, since there's no "National Physicians Code" to
measure them by.

Let's apply it to us.  Take the case of a programmer who writes the code
for an electronic defibrillator.  Obviously, the code needs to be
"perfect", or else the machine might deliver a lethal shock.  Who should
write it?  A "licensed" programmer?  A member of the ACM?  A graduate of
MIT?  J Random StreetPerson?  

Let's say it fails in operation, killing a patient.  It's shown that faulty
code is responsible.  Do we yank the programmer's license, or his
membership in the ACM?  Contact MIT and revoke his diploma?  Sue MIT for
granting him one in the first place?  Put him back on the streets?  

What if it's the fault of the VisualSnozz++ compiler?  Can we go back and
pull Microsoft's coder's ACM membership?  Take away his license to code?
Pull the original coder's license for failing to use a compiler written by
an ACM certified professional?  Put Bill Gates in jail for selling it?

Would membership in the ACM be "proof" to an employer that this person
would produce "bug-free" software?  Would they bond and insure their code,
etc.?

The big questions, then, are:
Does regulation fit our industry?  If so, where?
Will I be kicked out of the ACM for writing non-GAKked encryption software?
 ...for posting to cypherpunks in support of non-GAKked software?
...for having an incorrect political viewpoint?  A conviction for
thoughtcrime?

John
--
J. Deters "Don't think of Windows programs as spaghetti code.  Think
          of them as 'Long sticky pasta objects in ActiveX sauce'."
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NET:   mailto:jad@dsddhc.com (work)   mailto:jad@pclink.com (home) |
| PSTN:  1 612 375 3116 (work)          1 612 894 8507 (home)        |
| ICBM:  44^58'36"N by 93^16'27"W Elev. ~=290m (work)                |
| For my public key, send mail with the exact subject line of:       |
| Subject: get pgp key                                               |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

>Men from black helicopters forced Tim May to say:

>(I say "worst" in the liberty/freedom of choice sense. Personally, I have
>never smoked a single cigarette and think anyone who does is foolish. But
>being foolish is everyone's right. Taking away choice is not a solution a
>free society can live with. This applies to advertising, which is pure
>speech, in my view--the aforementioned point about sponsorship of sporting
>events, or print ads, has zero, zip, nada to do with any alleged FCC role
>in limiting use of the "public airwaves," so it's a speech issue. There are
>possible FTC (advertising claims) and FDA (safety of nicotine if it is
>deemed a drug) roles that some could plausibly argue, but these are not
>central in the Grand Deal discussions, and are not at all the same as
>halting sports advertising, etc. Lots of issues, obviously, and our posts
>are only touching on a few facets.)


What if private citizens decided to place Joe Camel ads in print and TV or
sponsor an event.  Would they also be constrained in their freedom of
speech?

--Steve

On Thu, Jul 10, 1997 at 06:36:13PM -0400, Peter Swire wrote:
> At 09:29 AM 7/10/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
> >I'm not a lawyer, but I am interested in the various ramifications--and the
> >constitutionality--of recent "sweeping contracts" between vendors,
> >lawmakers, consumers, etc.
> >
> >Two recent example:
> >
> >1. The "tobacco agreement." Supposedly a deal involving the transfer of
> >$360 billion from some number of tobacco companies in exchange for dropping
> >of liability suits, immunity from future claims, voluntary restrictions (!)
> >on advertising, etc. (And the "etc." is especially complicated in this huge
> >case.)
> 
>         So far as I know, the agreement has no legal effect until and unless
> a bill is enacted in Congress. Once a bill is enacted, there can obviously
> be far-reaching ramifications.  For instance, an individual's right to sue
> in tort can be cut off.  Punitive damages can be abolished for the defined
> class of suits, etc.
>         If such a bill is enacted, various groups would likely sue on the
> basis that it is unconstitutional.  That's what happened with CDA -- the
> indecency provisions first became law, and then were overturned in the courts.

Hmmm.  I thought the basis was completely different.  I thought the
deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting
suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies.  That
is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit. 

As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co.  And
there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech
issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between
the parties of a civil suit.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 12:48 AM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
...
>Hmmm.  I thought the basis was completely different.  I thought the
>deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting
>suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies.  That
>is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit.
>
>As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co.  And
>there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech
>issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between
>the parties of a civil suit.

The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet
sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking
redress in the courts.

This would seem to be a rather major constitutional issue.

It's also unclear whether the "agreement" covers tobacco companies not even
extant at this time (hence my use of the "Tim's Tobacco Company" example,
where TTC is incorporated in 1998 and begins advertising with Joe
Camel-type ads. Several states attorneys general have opinined that the
deal means a complete end to such advertising, to sponsorship of sporting
events by tobacco companies, etc.

BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling
legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious
constitutional questions.

The problem may lie in class action suits in general. I'm no constitutional
scholar, but I rather doubt the Framers had in mind the concept that J.
Random Luser could sue in courts "on behalf" of thousands or millions of
others who have not even joined the suit or may not even be aware of the
suit, or may not support the suit. And the notion that the states, or
insurance companies, or whatever, could sue to collect their costs when no
contract was involved...well, this is just plain absurd. If I eat too many
hamburgers and develop coronary disease, and some insurance company loses
money on me....they cannot sue MacDonalds or Burger King for making their
costs higher, any more than an exercise gym or health food store can sue
the insurance company and demand a part of the "savings" from the
presumably healthier clients!

There are indeed deep constitutional issues involved in both of the cases
being discussed in this thread.

--Tim May

There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 11:28:39AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> At 12:48 AM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
> ...
> >Hmmm.  I thought the basis was completely different.  I thought the
> >deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting
> >suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies.  That
> >is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit.
> >
> >As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co.  And
> >there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech
> >issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between
> >the parties of a civil suit.
> 
> The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet
> sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking
> redress in the courts.

I don't think it is correct that the deal halts future lawsuits from 
other parties, only from the signers of the deal.

> This would seem to be a rather major constitutional issue.

Not really.  It would just be unconstitutional, and almost certainly
thrown out.  I don't think the lawyers involved are that stupid.  By
getting the major tobacco companies to an essentially private
agreement they have achieved their goals -- it would be silly to
depend on a fickle, money-hungry congress to pass some laws to enforce
it. 

> It's also unclear whether the "agreement" covers tobacco companies not even
> extant at this time (hence my use of the "Tim's Tobacco Company" example,
> where TTC is incorporated in 1998 and begins advertising with Joe
> Camel-type ads. Several states attorneys general have opinined that the
> deal means a complete end to such advertising, to sponsorship of sporting
> events by tobacco companies, etc.

As a practical matter, yes.  As a matter of law, no.  TTC isn't going
to be sponsoring tennis tournaments any time soon, I trust?  It's 
*big* tobacco that is under attack here -- the small fry don't matter.

> BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling
> legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious
> constitutional questions.

Could you find a reference to this putative enabling legislation? I
think it is a figment of somebody's imagination.  My impression was
that the "stick" wasn't new legislation, but rather the imminent
regulation of nicotine as a drug.  There *may* be such legislation in
the works, but it seems completely unnecessary for the anti-tobacco
forces to accomplish their aims, and, in fact, a stupid thing to 
depend on.

> The problem may lie in class action suits in general. 

Completely different issue, I believe, one I would not care to argue 
either way.

[...]
> 
> There are indeed deep constitutional issues involved in both of the cases
> being discussed in this thread.

There may be some constitutional issues in the ratings issue, but all 
I have seen on this thread so far is speculation about issues that 
*might* be present.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 12:06 PM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 11:28:39AM -0700, Tim May wrote:

>> The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet
>> sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking
>> redress in the courts.
>
>I don't think it is correct that the deal halts future lawsuits from
>other parties, only from the signers of the deal.

Well, what more is there to say? You obviously have not bothered to follow
this issue, or you would surely know that a key provision of the deal, and
probably one of the main things that made it somewhat attractive to the
tobacco companies is that it put an end to future lawsuits.

(How could it be otherwise, as a deal? If the tobacco companies paid out
$360 billion to the current crop of folks suing them (some fraction to the
suers, some fraction for education and health programs, etc.), and then in
5 years or so _another crop_ of folks demanded "their" hundreds of
billions, and so on forever....)

Here is just one of the recent news stories on this point:

"Tuesday July 8 11:59 AM EDT

"Lawyer sues over tobacco deal

"CHICAGO, July 8 (UPI) _ Attorney Kenneth Moll says the agreement between
more than three dozen states and the tobacco industry will
compromise the rights of individuals and he has filed suit challenging that
part of the agreement that protects cigarette-makers from future
suits. "

Now is it clearer to you what we've been discussing? Jeesh.

(I could spend more time with HotBot or Alta Vista digging up more news
stories, inclduding the actual text of the agreement, such as it has been
publicized, but I don't plan to spend my time recapping the obvious. Check
out the news stories in the June 20-22 period for more details than you can
read in a day of reading.)





>> BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling
>> legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious
>> constitutional questions.
>
>Could you find a reference to this putative enabling legislation? I
>think it is a figment of somebody's imagination.  My impression was
>that the "stick" wasn't new legislation, but rather the imminent
>regulation of nicotine as a drug.  There *may* be such legislation in
>the works, but it seems completely unnecessary for the anti-tobacco
>forces to accomplish their aims, and, in fact, a stupid thing to
>depend on.

I just plain give up on you, Kent. You obviously have not been reading or
following the news. The "deal" requires Congressional action...there have
been scads of stories on this precise point, and Clinton is already making
noises about not signing the legislation unless details are changed. Again,
spend a few minutes in a search engine. (Try typing "tobacco" into Yahoo's
news search engine, for example.)

No point in even debating someone who is ignorant of the basics in the debate.

--Tim May


There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 12:45:15PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
[...]
> 
> Well, what more is there to say? You obviously have not bothered to follow
> this issue, or you would surely know that a key provision of the deal, and
> probably one of the main things that made it somewhat attractive to the
> tobacco companies is that it put an end to future lawsuits.

No, it does not.  It puts an end to certain *kinds* of lawsuits, most
notably, class action suits, and it limits punitive damages.  But it
is not a blanket end lawsuits, as you seem to believe. 

> (How could it be otherwise, as a deal? 

I don't know, Tim.  It's just that it *is* otherwise, as a deal.

[...]

> Now is it clearer to you what we've been discussing? Jeesh.

Somewhat.  Presumably it is for you, as well.

[...]

> I just plain give up on you, Kent. You obviously have not been reading or
> following the news. The "deal" requires Congressional action...there have
> been scads of stories on this precise point, and Clinton is already making
> noises about not signing the legislation unless details are changed.

You are right, I was wrong, the deal does require congressional
action.  You are also right that I haven't been spending a lot of time
following this story.  However, it is obvious, given your obvious lack
of understanding of the details about which suits were blocked and
which were not, that you weren't paying close attention either. 

Relax.  No need to be indignant.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

At 2:14 PM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 12:45:15PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> Well, what more is there to say? You obviously have not bothered to follow
>> this issue, or you would surely know that a key provision of the deal, and
>> probably one of the main things that made it somewhat attractive to the
>> tobacco companies is that it put an end to future lawsuits.
>
>No, it does not.  It puts an end to certain *kinds* of lawsuits, most
>notably, class action suits, and it limits punitive damages.  But it
>is not a blanket end lawsuits, as you seem to believe.

You're a fool and a knave. You claim I said "all" lawsuits, when it was
clear from my posts, the posts of Peter Swire, and others, that the Deal
involved an end (if upheld) to various kinds of lawsuits, raising serious
constitutional issues.

The "all" is your addition to my words. I don't recall ever making any
statement that "all lawsuits" are blocked, settled, etc. Presumably R.J.
Reynolds could still be sued for having slippery floors in their corporate
buildings...I don't know. What I do know is that the Deal bars lawsuits
from those not even part of the class action lawsuits: it effectively gives
a grant of perpetual immunity for smoking-related damages to the tobacco
companies. _This_ is the main issue being discussed, along with other parts
of the Deal, such as the touted banishment of the Marlboro Man, Joe Camel,
and similar images from all advertising and sponsorship of sporting events.

And to show your knavishness, the point you made was this:

"I don't think it is correct that the deal halts future lawsuits from
other parties, only from the signers of the deal."

This is patently wrong, as the various lawsuits being filed, or planned to
be filed, show. The Deal would halt future lawsuits from smokers, even
those who have not yet engaged in any class action suit (even those who
have not yet started smoking, even those not yet born, as experts
understand the language of the Deal). These are certainly constitutional
issues, not mere agreements between parties to a deal, as you allege.


>> (How could it be otherwise, as a deal?
>
>I don't know, Tim.  It's just that it *is* otherwise, as a deal.

You're disingenuous, as usual. I've come to expect nothing different from you.

The Deal raises substantive issues in many areas, as nearly all news
reports are showing. Critics are emerging from all corners, ranging from
Ralph Nader to the ACLU. Clinton has said he will veto the Congressional
legislation if it enacts the language currently in the Deal. Lawsuits have
already been filed.

>Relax.  No need to be indignant.
>

I'll be indignant if I wish. Your intent clearly is to troll this group
with government-friendly shilling. And like Sternlight, you mask your
ignorance on many issues with pomposity. Like Detweiler and Vulis, your
intent is to disrupt the group.

Taking you out of my Eudora filter file--as I periodically do with almost
everyone in that file--was a mistake. Back in you go.

--Tim May



There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws.
Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!"
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 03:29:37PM -0700, Tim May wrote:

<snip>
> What I do know is that the Deal bars lawsuits
> from those not even part of the class action lawsuits: it effectively gives
> a grant of perpetual immunity for smoking-related damages to the tobacco
> companies.

and

> The Deal would halt future lawsuits from smokers, even
> those who have not yet engaged in any class action suit (even those who
> have not yet started smoking, even those not yet born, as experts
> understand the language of the Deal).

>From http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/20/tobacco.pm.2/index.html

    "Smokers who are ill could no longer sue tobacco companies seeking
    punitive damages for past industry misconduct, but they COULD SUE
    TO RECOVER ACTUAL DAMAGES SUCH AS MEDICAL BILLS.  SMOKERS STILL
    COULD SUE FOR AND COLLECT BOTH ACTUAL AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR ANY
    FUTURE INDUSTRY WRONGDOING."

> >Relax.  No need to be indignant.
> 
> I'll be indignant if I wish.

Of course.

> Your intent clearly is to troll this group with government-friendly
> shilling.

I suppose it could be just as accurately said that you troll the group
with government-unfriendly shilling.  Some have an unfortunate habit
of rising to the bait.

> And like Sternlight, you mask your
> ignorance on many issues with pomposity. 

Possibly.  Obviously not doing a very good job.  Clearly, my ignorance
is boundless, and what I know is very tiny indeed.  However, I observe
that you are very familiar with pomposity, and should therefore be a
good judge.  

> Like Detweiler and Vulis, your
> intent is to disrupt the group.

I don't know about Detweiler.  In my short tenure on this list Vulis
has given no evidence that his intent is to "disrupt the group" -- he 
just seems to express his sometimes extreme opinions.  Like you.

In any case, it is not true that my intent is to "disrupt the group",
and it is hard to see how my few, offhand posts on the topic of the
tobacco agreement could be seen as anything remotely approaching a
deliberate campaign.  I think you are attributing me far more potency
than is warranted.

KC

nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 03:29:37PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
>
> > Your intent clearly is to troll this group with government-friendly
> > shilling.
>
> I suppose it could be just as accurately said that you troll the group
> with government-unfriendly shilling.  Some have an unfortunate habit
> of rising to the bait.

I don't respond to Kent, and most of the time delete his articles after
reading only the first few lines.  I hope that one day he will say
something more profound that his usual trolls.

> > And like Sternlight, you mask your
> > ignorance on many issues with pomposity.
>
> Possibly.  Obviously not doing a very good job.  Clearly, my ignorance
> is boundless, and what I know is very tiny indeed.  However, I observe
> that you are very familiar with pomposity, and should therefore be a
> good judge.

Back when Sternlight joined this mailing list briefly and started trolling
people with his stupid and ignorant rants, I repeatedly asked everyone not
to respond to his trolls on-list.  When Sternlight was ignored, he left.
He might have had something interesting to say (he knows a lot more about
crypto than Timmy - still not much) but he chose not to.

> > Like Detweiler and Vulis, your
> > intent is to disrupt the group.
>
> I don't know about Detweiler.  In my short tenure on this list Vulis
> has given no evidence that his intent is to "disrupt the group" -- he
> just seems to express his sometimes extreme opinions.  Like you.

Timmy is just lying. I'm not disrputing this mailing list - quite the
opposite, I played a signficant role in saving it from censorship.

Detweiller knows much more than Timmy about cryptography and is a
victim of his censorship.

---

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

Tim May wrote:
> At 12:06 PM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 11:28:39AM -0700, Tim May wrote:

> Now is it clearer to you what we've been discussing? Jeesh.
> 
> (I could spend more time with HotBot or Alta Vista digging up more news
> stories, inclduding the actual text of the agreement, such as it has been
> publicized, but I don't plan to spend my time recapping the obvious.

> >Could you find a reference to this putative enabling legislation? I
> >think it is a figment of somebody's imagination.
> 
> I just plain give up on you, Kent. You obviously have not been reading or
> following the news. The "deal" requires Congressional action...
> Again,
> spend a few minutes in a search engine. (Try typing "tobacco" into Yahoo's
> news search engine, for example.)

Tim,
I think it was nice of you to take your own time to help Kent not
be so stoopid. He should appreciate it instead of calling you an
asshole since he is lazy and you are not.
I am not lazy and I don't mind doing my own work to find stuff with
a searcher engine but I need help and I thought I would ask you since
you are so helpful and smart with searcher engines.

I lost my pencil. I thought it was on the desk but I looked there,
and underneath it and everything and in the kitchen and I checked
in the couch cushions and the bathroom and I still can't find it.

Can I use the searcher engine to find it? Once I heard about a
cipherpuck list guy that had to use a searcher engine to find 
his shoes so I thought maybe I could use one to find my pencil.

I can't remember my email number but I'm on AOL so when you answer
me you can just go there and ask around if anyone knows me.

Kunt Cribspin
ps -- If Camel has to give up the Camel then does Kool have to give
up the Penguin? Do the people who make poison have to give up the
skull and crossbones guy? A lot of the kids like to be him on 
halloween so I guess he would be a bad influence and kids will
drink poison to be like him.

  Hey, about crypto! Why don't you just call your crypto ^art^, like
movies are? Then you could put foreign subtitles on it or ^dub^ it
on the outside with other words and if the cops complain that it 
doesn't match what is inside then you can tell them that the in
the movies the words don't match the people's lips and ^that's^ not
a crime for chrissake!
  I told my uncle about making cryto into art and he had a good
idea (it's funny).
  He said when the cops complain that they don't understand what
the crypto says that you can offer to tell them what it is about.
  Then you stand back and look at it from a couple different angles
and then you look at them while sweeping your arms around in the air
like a beatnik and you say, "It's about man's inhumanity to man."