Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:47:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
275 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
<snip>
>
> Here's a thought experiment for you in return:
>
> I build an autonomous device that churns out sentence after sentence of
> information, but unknown to me the device develops a flaw and starts
> generating only false information (like Fox News, for example). Just for
> giggles let's suppose that I form this device into a corporation. I have no
> control over the content of the information, but I allow the device to run
> indefinitely and to feed its output to the Internet. In the course of time,
> the device concocts an elaborate but false claim that ice cream causes
> cancer, and it distributes the information so thoroughly and so convincingly
> that every ice cream manufacturer in the country goes bankrupt as a result
> of consumer fear. Have I committed slander or libel? Of course not--*I*
> didn't distribute the information. Has my device committed libel or
> slander? I don't think so, since no claims were made about any particular
> entity or person. Further, it would have to be demonstrated that the
> statements of my device were materially responsible for the loss of profit,
> which I don't believe could be done.
I think it could, in the same way 'class action' lawsuits work--
"Excuse me witness A--why did you stop buying ice cream?"
"Why it causes cancer, of course!"
"where did you hear that?"
"From this website that explicitly said it did"
"Excuse me witness B--why did you stop buying ice cream?"
...
"Excuse me witness ZZZZZZC--why did you stop buying ice cream?"
If all roads lead to Rome, then Rome is the destination.
If your machine is *responsible* for this disservice, and we cannot hold a
machine 'legally' responsible, then we have to look to the maker/supporter
of said machine. In the end, since you *made* and implemented the machine,
you're responsible for it.
If you shoot a gun, it's the bullet that physically did the killing, but you
can't legally hold the gun responsible, but you can hold the guy behind the
gun legally responsible.
> In this experiment, have I committed an actionable offense?
I think so--if your machine throws pollutants into the air or if it spews
falsehoods on the internet, aren't they similar? Isn't the owner
responsible for either situation?
> Is the free
> speech of my incorporated device protected? Even in the face of falsehoods,
> as you purport to the be case re: Nike?
Again, the protection of free speech arguement ceased when falsehoods
started--just as your machine cannot be in a crowded theatre yelling
'fire!', it cannot state that ice cream causes cancer--it's the same
thing--falsehood renders the 1st invalid.
> The fact that they weren't
> deliberate is especially relevant, because corporations, confronted by their
> falsehoods, would certainly claim that they hadn't committed deliberate
> falsehoods, either.
Yes, but corporations have to pay out and fix, even if they themselves were
'in the dark' about the detrimental issues of their companies--when they
find out the harm.
It's when the corporations, with full knowledge of the detriment of their
product, who continue to produce and sell their product without passing on
that information to the user, a la cigarettes, that is most bothersome. Not
today, mind you--you'd have to be under some sort of rock to not know that
smoking harms/kills.
It's also these corporations, who, when faced with financial insecurity due
to the 'boycott' of their products, try to cover up, or deliberately
obfuscate the situation in order to regain sales, instead of fixing the
issue in the first place, a la Nike.
A withholding of truth is as cause for concern as outright lieing. If I
were in a theatre and I saw a fire, and yet did not notify anyone, and
casually walked out of the theatre, isn't that just as wrong as yelling fire
where no fire exists?
> Dave!
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Wait a minute--show me where in the Constitution it is guaranteed that corporations have free speech. I'm not talking about some nebulous, fantasy market-of-ideas, but rather the actual Constitution, since that's what's being discussed in the (...) (21 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
