"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in


Interesting case, Bill. What's your position on this?



I've, of course, no clue about Bill's view .... but mine


is that anyone that would say things on the Internet he wouldn't have the
balls to say face to face deserves punishment. Now I mean that more in a
social sense than a legal one, as free speach is something we need to
defend.

So, what you're saying is that free speech can only be defended by beating
someone up.....or being beaten up.....in a face to face confrontation? But
then, it isn't really punishment, is it? I guess I probably wouldn't tell
you to your face that the logic you display above is twisted. Personally, I
think that isn't necessarily a matter of balls. At any rate, it looks as if
you'll have to sue me.

But, the various forms of Internet cummunication are taking an
increasingly important role in all our human to human encounters and I
think it will become necessary to provide limits on what can be said
without the offended person having legal means to stop it and/or be
compensated for it.

No legal expert myself, but I believe there are already such limitations in
place. The trouble is that the courts in this country are still run (by and
large) by adults......adults who DO know the law.

If someone wrote material that was untrue, and harmful to me in my local
newspaper .... I'd sue and expect to win ....

Well, you might indeed expect to win but I'd bet a shiny new nickel that
"untrue and harmful" are not in and of themselves sufficient to guarantee
it.

what's the difference, if the media changes?

There is none that I'm aware of (bearing in mind, once again, that I'm no
expert). I believe that the plaintiff would be subject to the same burdens
of proof (whatever they might be) and other legal constraints as in any
other case.

Now, clearly the Net has a "tradition" of tolerating true assholes and
deviates but I believe that as the media matures so will the behavior
required to use it, free from financial retaliation.

I certainly hope not. As highly vaunted as free speech is, I think it's
time we give it a try. We are now, for the first time in the history of the
species, in a position experiment with something very much like it. It
would be a shame to let such an opportunity pass untried.

At least I hope so, since much of what now happens is at the lowest level
of human interaction and the media has much potential to improve man's
interaction with man, not lower it to Jr High posturing gone mad behind a
"screen name."

Interaction is still like the tango......no one can do it alone. As for the
medium, its potential lies precisely in its freedom from interference.
Consider the development of the internet.......the most complex construct in
human history.....and it was done with exactly NOBODY in charge. That's a
lot more important than you think.

Wolfgang