From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 17:40:14 MST
----- Original Message -----
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc@att.net>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: Internet and defamation laws
[Aside. I went away for the weekend and came back
to find 200 plus emails. If this thread has moved on or
died out now no problem - but here are my thoughts anyway]
> "Brett Paatsch" <paatschb@ocean.com.au> Wrote:
>
> > I like free speech AND defamation laws.
>
> Mutually exclusive.
On any one particular point that may be so. But not generally. I mean it
is possible when one is considering social policy to hold that free speech
is the blanket proposition. It is what society should seek except in those
defined subsets of cases where the general soundness of the principle
ceases to hold. I think defamation laws, well and sensibly construed as
exceptions to the generally sound position of free speech can further
refine and vitalise society. As aspects of social policy and as extropic
tools both can play a role in the same society. But nothing in this amounts
to a particular defence or otherwise of existing defamation laws. Naturally
there will be tensions between the general principle of free speech and when
particular exceptions to that general principle can be made. It is at
the points of tension where our interest is best focussed imo. But
to argue that free speech in all circumstances is the highest imperative
seems impractical and unworldly. It seems to make for a kind of
abstract idealism that doesn't fit usefully within the world most of us
actually live in.
>In the long run everybody would benefit if defamation
> laws were abolished, except for trial lawyers.
Nah. Too inefficient. Lawyers for all that may be wrong or right with
them are a useful part of the "social ecosystem".
> You seem to think that if we
> didn't have libel laws the sum total of all reputations in a society would
> go down,
Yes I think this is a fair summary of my position.
>I don't see how that could happen
I think it happens because people have too make decisions including
decisions on each others character, trustworthiness etc, on the
information available and people don't have full or complete information.
It's quite easy and efficient as a competitive strategy (if society doesn't
recognize and counter that easiness and effectiveness) to smear with
countermeasures.
> and don't see how it would
> matter if it did, reputation is a relative scale after all. I think libel
> laws just make reputations more inaccurate.
I think it matters because we'd all have to spend a lot more time defending
against specious attacks because of the nature of human perceptions and
judgements in social situations where imperfect information and non
transparency is a fact of contemporary life. This is just inefficient for
society.
>
> > Free speech can sometimes be cheap speech.
>
> It usually is, but so what? If I say bad things about you it will only be
> really damaging to you if my reputation is good. If I have a history of
> making similar charges that turned out to be untrue anything I say will
just
> be shrugged off. I think a free market of ideas should determine what is
> true and what is not, the idea of some an official body making such a
decree
> gives me the creeps.
>
> >despite understanding the principle of tit-for-tat, one doesn't need
> >to personally punch every nose, return every shot or refute every bit
> >of pissant nastiness.
>
> I could not agree more.
Ok good. But what I think follows from this is not that tit for tat is
not valid and/or that we don't need countermeasures and responses
to those forms of competitive behaving which come from a zero sum
game mindset seek to win by attacking the effectiveness of the other.
What follows, I think, is that effective people who are not zero sum
gamers themselves, but still recognize that zero sum games are how
others see much of the competitive world and form the basis on which
others choose to compete, still need to have some countermeasure
response to the zero sum gamers attacks.
Only being able to respond personally with speech for speech restricts
the effective person. This is exactly the sort of person that it is in
societies
interests (if that person is not anti-social) not to restrict.
>
> >By leveraging knowledge of the law one can delegate.
>
> Why not delegate to your potential customers, let them figure
> out what your reputation should be.
My "customers" will be making decisions about me on the basis of
imperfect information no matter what I do. If someone wants
something I am selling but has other potential suppliers, it is not
efficient for them to have to sift through a bunch of claims and counter
claims. They, the customers, are likely to conclude that maybe where
there is smoke there is fire and they don't know or really care so
long as they can find an alternative supplier with less doubt associated.
>The successful ones will be those who have correctly
> determined what your reputation should be, those who don't want
> to do business with you because they incorrectly think your
> reputation is too low will soon be put out of business by those
> who make the correct judgments.
>
Ok. I'm changing the frame of reference a bit going from businessman
to politician but the principle of people having to decide between
competitive offerings (and reputations) on imperfect information is the
same. In politics 'the customer' is the voter and the voter doesn't go
out of business simply because they vote badly. So in politics its
necessary to be careful and efficient in the message and impression
that is sent out. In politics what matters for the setting of
policy is not how many smart votes one gets but how many votes in
favor of a particular proposition. For a particular proposition two
dumb ill-considered votes count for twice as much as one very well
considered vote.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST