On 11 July 2013 13:21, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > I think we're on the same page then, actually. I mentioned 'punishment' > as a > factor, but I didn't mean it to be the only one. E.g. one looks at the > whole > package to see if the effect on speech is particularly meaningful, can > probably > come up with some N-prong test etc. that includes strictness, time-limit, > punishment, etc. > > For example, if the contract simply said "I will pay omd for each day > e doesn't post. When e posts, e is in violation of the contract, the > contract is terminated without further penalty, and the pay ceases". > > This contract would fit the CFJ. Does it really do anything to > 'substantially > limit' the right? >
You're right, it doesn't. I was thinking of cases where more explicit (punishment-like) penalties would be imposed for violation of the agreement. My overall opinion is that within the boundaries of the contract described > in > the CFJ, there are probably contracts that would violate and would not > violate. > So this might be UNDETERMINED. I just don't think R101 is so absolute such > that even a simple "you can't reveal this scam until Friday or you have to > pay > me" would violate it. > I think we agree. I have a dim recollection of having written a judgement that argued that a consequence has to meet a threshhold test to count as a punishment/penalty. -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
