Re: Fraud and free speech

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com> writes:

>
> At 5:27 PM -0700 6/8/97, Tim May wrote:
> >(Oh, and it almost goes without saying that the same "lies" William and
> >others are so worried about in "commercial" speech happen all the time in
> >non-commerical speech. For every example of where commercial speech
> >involves lies or fraud, I can find similar or fully equivalent
> >non-commercial examples, ranging from lies like "I love you" to get a
> >partner into bed to deliberate misstatements to mislead an opponent. Why
> >should such "lies" be protected while putatively commercial speech is to be
> >subjected to an increasing number of limitations?)
>
> The only justification I can think of off hand is that a presumption of
> truth may make for more efficient markets.  On the other hand, it also has
> very bad effects when applied to political speech.

I'm inclined to argue that "presumption of truth" and "implied warranty
of merchantability" actually lead to LESS efficient markets, but I'm
too tried tonite.  If anyone's interesting, please ping me later. :-)

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps