Re: [tlug] Re: is there a real possibility that Sco get what it c laims?

[Raymond Regalado <fwgk5942@example.com>]

On 2004.2.11, at 03:03  PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

> So, of course there are moral obligations.
>
> What you and Shawn are advocating, from the point of view of free
> speech, is removing the _listener's_ moral obligation to distinguish
> fact from fiction, and placing the entire burden on the speaker.

I am?  Now where did I do that...

> For example, of course even the most conservative thinkers about free
> speech agree that prohibiting the (inappropriate) screaming of "fire"
> in a crowded place is legitimate.  Why?  _If_ the information is
> correct, there is no time to check it---the moral obligation is to
> _act_, overriding the moral obligation to think about what you heard.
> But this is not a problem in the case of SCO's frothings.

The only point I think we ought to emphasize here is that if SCO were 
*moral* (and not greedy and malicious), they wouldn't be doing what 
they're doing (i.e. abusing "free speech").  Thus, their *moral* 
obligation may not be a legal obligation, but it is still a moral 
obligation.  However, them being immoral.  Ah, but who am I to say that 
lying is "immoral"?  And so on...

> Nobody said anything about "do", either.  Just "say."  They need to be
> treated quite differently, because "sticks and stones may break my
> bones, but words will never hurt me."  In cases where they can (aka
> libel and slander), once again, lying is prohibited.  What's the harm
> in letting Darl hold press conferences?

Oh, let him have his press conferences!

> Raymond> Yes, OT.
>
> Not really.

Uh, maybe in the next nomikai! ;-)

Cheers,

Raymond