[Fwd: THE TEARS OF THE MIGHTY]

[Gordon Fitch]

Dace:
> If by "speech" we mean people expressing their opinion, then the right to
> free speech is absolute.  It is absolute only to the extent that speech is
> severed from action.  You cannot be convicted of libel unless it's
> demonstrated that you've intentionally spread false information to hurt
> someone.  Trying to hurt someone is an action, not "speech" according to the
> narrow definition.  True speech entails expressing what you believe to be
> the truth.  In other words, if speaking what you perceive as truth hurts
> someone, then that's their problem.  If speaking what you know to be false
> hurts someone, that's your problem.  Copyright violation only applies when
> you're trying to fool people into believing that someone else's speech is
> your own.  To that extent it ceases to be an expression of belief and
> becomes an action.  Same goes for harassment and fraud.  These are attempts
> to achieve some kind of effect in the world beyond changing someone's mind.
> ...

I gave the examples I did to show that the right of free speech
is by no means absolute in liberal theory.  In the case of
copyright violation, it makes no difference whether your
utterance is an opinion or something else.  A state of mind
is precisely what is affected in both libel and copyright
violation -- in the former case, a person's repute is affected,
in the later, information which is held to be property is
conveyed without the owner's permission.

Arguments about the practical difficulties of enforcing a ban
on certain kinds of speech are certainly reasonable, but they
have not been turned into a theory, other than a theory of
utility and convenience.  No one has shown why someone who is
harmed by racist speech should accept the harm, but those
harmed by libel or copyright violation should use politics
and the law to defend their interests.  I believe this
contradiction is implicit in arguing from the First Amendment
and other liberal ikons, given that they coexist with the
significant restrictions on free expression I have mentioned.
If people are aruging that _all_ State restraints on expression
should be abolished, they haven't said so.

Gordon