3 ms·

True. That leads to adverse selection though: the clubs self select as juicy targets laden with assets. Further, only the rich can speak. I doubt those making

by graeme 7y ago

True. That leads to adverse selection though: the clubs self select as juicy targets laden with assets. Further, only the rich can speak. I doubt those making these proposals upthread want these consequences. For whatever reason people really don’t think their proposals through. (Not referring to you)

pessimizer 7y ago
You seem to be confidently supporting a case that this is an impossible structure because only the rich would be allowed to speak. You don't seem to be making any distinction between the situation the club would be in from the situation that individuals are currently in. The club being liable is no different from an individual being liable, which is the current situation, other than that the club has the ability to dissolve. Again, if libel law is broken, fix it. Somehow your alternative to the unthinkable outcome of only the rich being able to speak is to exclusively immunize the rich from the consequences of speech that they have direct and complete control over.
- graeme 7y ago
  People don’t sue random Internet commentors for libel. But imagine a form for them exclusively rich people. They have all taken out and Schoenes that will cover lawsuits of indefinite liability. Millions or billions. And if you find anything suitable on anywhere in the form you are guaranteed by the structure of the club that someone will make good to pay it if you win. That’s the structure that you were arguing for. It’s a strange structure. But I am not arguing that only the rich can speak. Regular users don’t face any real risk of libel for Internet comments. The risk would arise for the private club because it has a target on his back: the money is here. As a reminder the reason regular people couldn’t speak under your proposal is that in normal cases of form would itself be liable for our comments. So it would be uneconomical to run a forum due to the legal risk

by graeme 7y ago

pessimizer 7y ago

You seem to be confidently supporting a case that this is an impossible structure because only the rich would be allowed to speak. You don't seem to be making any distinction between the situation the club would be in from the situation that individuals are currently in. The club being liable is no different from an individual being liable, which is the current situation, other than that the club has the ability to dissolve. Again, if libel law is broken, fix it. Somehow your alternative to the unthinkable outcome of only the rich being able to speak is to exclusively immunize the rich from the consequences of speech that they have direct and complete control over.

graeme 7y ago
People don’t sue random Internet commentors for libel. But imagine a form for them exclusively rich people. They have all taken out and Schoenes that will cover lawsuits of indefinite liability. Millions or billions. And if you find anything suitable on anywhere in the form you are guaranteed by the structure of the club that someone will make good to pay it if you win. That’s the structure that you were arguing for. It’s a strange structure. But I am not arguing that only the rich can speak. Regular users don’t face any real risk of libel for Internet comments. The risk would arise for the private club because it has a target on his back: the money is here. As a reminder the reason regular people couldn’t speak under your proposal is that in normal cases of form would itself be liable for our comments. So it would be uneconomical to run a forum due to the legal risk