Re: Responses to "Spam costs and questions" (long)

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Jun 07, 1997 at 01:53:05PM -0500, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com> writes:
[...]
> 
> Yes, the only honorable response to speech you don't like
> is to ignore it or to respond with more speech. 

Quite so.  The issue, then, is "what is speech".  I put a 190 db 
megaphone next to your head and scream into it, and your eardrums 
rupture and the blood flows, that's arguably not speech.

I would argue that in order for something to fall under the absolute 
protections free speech it has to meet certain characteristics -- it 
can't lead to direct bodily harm, or property damage, or any other 
kind of "damage" that is legally defined.

So the question of free speech is really, when you think about it, a 
question about what legally constitutes "damage".

In the internet context, then, activities that cause any reasonable 
definition of "damage" could be controlled, under the "non-aggression 
principle" if nothing else.

I think a reasonable definition of damage in an internet context is 
"excess interference with other transmission" (for some values of 
excess). 

-- 
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