Subject:
|
Re: Free Speech, again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:51:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
466 times
|
| |
|
|
Oh heck, I snipped most of it without regard to whether I agreed with it or
not...
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > No, YOU see above. (my we're argumentative today aren't we?)
>
> Unless you'd like me to start anticipating posts you've not yet posted
> (which I can often but not always do, since they're
> straight-down-the-pipe-Libertarian-orthodoxy),
No they aren't. At least not always. AM I THAT predictable?
I'm not a number (in a platform plank somewhere), I'm a free man!
But maybe I could make an autonomous machine, which, while regrettably not
supplying pudding, could post stuff for me?
> could you tone down the
> snippiness a little? We're both adults here.
Sorry, forgot a smiley, I was being wise at *myself*... not at you.
> > > Why are [corporations and the US govt ]different? I mean, aside from the
> > > public/private thing, which to me doesn't seem central.
> >
> > And to me it IS THE central distinction. Government has a monopoly on the
> > lawful use of initiated force. That changes everything.
>
> Which initiation of force are you talking about? Do you mean the fact
> that you will be incarcerated or fined if you break laws?
sure, and corporations can't do that in our system or in a minarchist
system, they need government for that.
> I'm afraid that's
> simple contract enforcement, which Libertarianism permits.
Some branches. Some suggest that breaking contracts be dealt with non violently.
> Moreover, your
> continued presence in the US is your continued endorsement of the social
> contract implied thereby.
Maybe I'm an enemy combatant?
> You're probably revving up an "asked and
> answered" or "ploughed ground alert" rejoinder, but the point has hardly
> been resolved in your favor, if at all.
>
> > ++Lar (no pudding for you!)
>
> See my LUGNET page--I've had enough pudding, thanks.
Apparently so... 7 pounds! Ye gads. Why? Dave! Why?
Were you trying to impress girls again? I saw we, from now on, call you
Puddn'head Dave!
OK, all fun aside I see this case boiling down to this:
Nike stands accused of lying in a certain way (according to the summaries of
the case provided here in this thread) about their actions, and further in a
way that (while it may not exactly be fraud or libel in a strict definition
although I could argue the point) is intended to deceive. It's false
advertising.
If Nike were a real person would this be actionable? I think so. False
advertising is actionable, ne?
You'll not see ME arguing that corporations should get WIDER protection than
people do. I think (at least libertarian corporations since they deny
limited liability) they're the same. You think it's less.
As long as it's not a wider protection for corps than for people, the ruling
in this case seems clear, false advertising is not protected free speech,
for either type of entity.
Since the Supremes always rule as narrowly (on questions) as they possibly
can, I predict this (false adverts not protected) is how they will find,
since there is no precedent for corporate speech being more protected,
*without* ruling on the wider question of whether corporate speech is more
or less protected than corporeal speech. (and thus disappointing those who
are interested in the wider question of wider vs. narrower protection of
corporate speech)
What do you think?
If you agree, we can put this to bed, happily settled.
Then we can get back to sparring about the rights of corps in the larger
case if you want, knowing that we are back on the abstract and we have
settled the concrete all neatly. (with liberty and pudding for all!)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| (...) Most importantly, you haven't told me where "ne" came from. Very clever omission--what are you hiding? (...) I've wondered about something like that. I believe the Turing test hypothesizes that a computer convincingly able to mimic human (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Free Speech, again
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: *** For the record, I've snipped parts with which I disagree but which I recognize will not yield to discussion by either of us--you're as convinced of your correctness as I am of mine, and never (...) (22 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
