At 20:32 -0800 on 2/27/01, Tim May wrote:
>Citing libel and slander in the context of "free speech" is a
>slippery slope. For one thing, neither libel nor slander has
>anything to do with First Amendment issues, which are limitations on
>censorship, prior restraint, etc. (Even the infamous "
At 12:32 AM -0600 2/28/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
>Jim said:
>
>> Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'.
>>
>> It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes
>> it a hard sell for obvious reasons.
>
>Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Chr
Jim said:
> Also known as 'polycracy' or 'polyocracy'.
>
> It's also worth knowing the only extant sample was the Third Reich. Makes
> it a hard sell for obvious reasons.
Polycentric law is older than the law itself. The Muslims and the Christians
used to trade using the Maghribi traders. They r
Tim May said:
> This is well-trod ground, even
I already know that you always say this.
I don't know that it does any good.
I'm not going to touch that wild free speech thread.
> >Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil
> >actions in defamation (slander and libel)
> For two reasons. First, it is not the role of government to protect
> your _reputation_. This puts others in the business of determining
> what "truth" is. Second, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." The
> cure for defamatory speech is _more_ speech.
Hmmm...good point. I should have thought o
At 8:32 PM -0800 2/27/01, Tim May wrote:
>
>Lastly, lest I ramble on too much, if there are issues of civil
>actions in defamation (slander and libel), there are some nice
>alternatives coming under the rubric of "polycentril law" or
>"markets for law." In a nutshell, if you want to sue me, con
