Of course almost no one strikes at the root and favors abolishing evil defamation law, which is the real problem. All these patches can't solve that. See Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property.
And the other problem is the CDA is unconstitutional, since as bad as state defamation law is, the Constitution does not authorize federal law that overrides state law. (The same is not true of the DMCA since that limits copyright liability, which is based on evil copyright law--another law that people who whine about the abuses of copyright do not really oppose.)
All IP law, including especially patent and copyright (which is also unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment (Copyright is Unconstitutional)), but also trademark (which is also unconstitutional because the copyright clause does not include it) and the reputation rights of defamation law should be abolished. Until we do, no patches and tinkering can prevent the harms that inevitable come from these laws. See The Problem with Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes.
who said anything about stateless? You don't have to be an anarchist to oppose the legitimacy of taxation, conscription, and the drug war. Once you have a powerful, dangerous state, it can violate rights, either substantively, by having unjust laws, or by ignoring prophylactic due process rights. The problem in the end is not due process it's that the state has power to decree whatever it wants to to be illegal.
Uh, you are aware that it's currently legal for the state to imprison (enslave) you if you do things it outlaws, like (a) sell drugs, (b) evade taxes, (c) refuse to be conscripted. This is the nature of the state. It's criminal and evil already. Always has been.
The problem with patents is one of morality: it's immoral to grant anti-competitive monopoly privileges to someone. Period. But once you have a patent system, nit-picking over the criteria the criminal fascist state's patent system employs to grant these monopoly privilege grants misses the point. It's not "immoral" to use knowledge that primitive savages choose not to patent and more than it's immoral to get any other patent. Do you guys really understand the problem with patents, or the purpose of property rights, or have any principles at all?
hmm, my bad. I read quickly and made the wrong assumption it appears, I thought you were talking about state court lawsuits.
I would think that your proposal would have some problems--Erie mandates the federal court apply state law. If state law permits a lawsuit, then how can a federal law prevent the suit filed under diversity jursidiction without running afoul of the Constitution and Erie. Not sure, I'd have to think about it.
"How would it be unconstitutional? Congress is specifically empowered by the Constitution to set rules for judicial procedure and such, so where’s the issue?"
Congress is empowered to set up the federal judiciary and its rules of procedure.
But this article calls for "federal anti-SLAPP law that protects everyone from vexatious litigation designed to suppress speech"--including state lawsuits such as the one complained of here: in this case, someone sued Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State for defamation in state court under state law. Congress has no power to tell Georgia what laws or judicial procedure it may have.
"“There is no power enumerated in the Constitution that empowers Congress to enact such a law. It would be unconstitutional, not to mention a bad idea.”
Since you failed to specify, I assume your comment addresses the “Case For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law” as seen in the post title."
Yes, I was actually referring to the actual post at issue here, which calls for a federal Anti-SLAPP law.
"How do you defend this frivolous litigation?"
I am not defending it. I am saying Congress has no power to do anything about it. Congress has no jurisdiction over internal state actions like lawsuits filed in state courts based on state law. As an example, there may be frivolous lawsuits filed in Canada or Germany as well, but Congress has no authority to limit them. Likewise it has no authority over the state governments or their legal systems, which are sovereign. See James J. Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007DNMIW/sr=1-1/qid=1154814003
"What is it the constitution is lacking, according to you." You may be unaware of this as most people do not know this and it's not widely taught in school, but the US federal government, while powerful, is unique in the world because it does not have general or plenary legislative or police power. It is a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers. It has no powers to act except those enumerated in the Constitution. This is why the Federalists didn't think a Bill of Rights was even necessary; for example they said there was no need for a First Amendment preventing Congress from abridging freedom of the press since there was no power granted to Congress to do this in the first place. The Anti-federalists did not trust this, however, so insisted on a Bill of Rights to make some of these implicit limits on federal power explicit; and to avoid the implication that these rights were listed because the federal government did have general legislative power, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added to make it clear that the feds had only the enumerated powers, and the rest were reserved to the states and the people. See on this The Unique American Federal Government. https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/the-unique-american-federal-government/
This is unlike normal states like, say, Canada or the UK or Germany, or US States like Texas or Colorado, which do have general (plenary) legislative and police power. So those states can enact any law they choose, unless it violates a right in their bill of rights. The Federal government cannot do this. It has to find an enumerated power to enact a law. Even if the law does not violate the Bill of Rights. And there is no power enumerated in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate intra-state legal matters like the filing of lawsuits in state courts. Only the state governments have the power to enact Anti-SLAPP legislation.
"Exactly how is defending the First Amendment “unconstitutional?”:
What is unconstitutional is a federal law regulating the filing of lawsuits in state courts, since there is no power enumerated in the Constitution for Congress to enact such a law. If you had not noticed, the First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which are limitations on federal power. They are not grants of power. In fact the Ninth Amendment was included precisely to prevent the rights in the bill of rights from being construed as grants of power.
"Maybe it wasn’t the state’s business."
Correct. State positive laws like this are unjust. They violate individual rights by punishing non-aggressive behavior.
"But then Kroger and Albertsons specifically requested from them (by 1902 and 1960 respectively), and received, the special privilege of limited liability. They chose to get involved with the state, knowing that certain responsibilities come along with that."
This does not follow, for several reasons. First, asking for, and receiving, a privilege, does not mean that this gives the state carte blanche to do what they want to these corporations.
Second, they didn't "ask" for it. The state imposes this by threatening liability, where none should be imposed in the first place, unless the firm uses the corporate form. I have already explained all this in Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. https://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/10/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/ Shareholders should not be liable in the first place for torts committed by employees of their company. Why should they be? So the state says: unless you incorporate we will subject you in our courts to unjust liability for acts of others; and when you are coerced into incorporating we will call it a privilege and now you can't complain if we double-tax your shareholders (since we now call the corporation a separate legal person) and you can't complain if we regulate you with antitrust law.
Because antitrust law violates individual rights by subjecting people to fines or punishment even though they have not committed aggression. The only laws that are just are those that prohibit aggression. Laws that punish non-aggressive behavior are themselves aggression and unjust. Businessmen/firms who collude do not violate rights since no one has a right to buy products from them at any specific price. Thus no just law can prohibit price fixing, monopolization, etc. I already gave references in my previous comment. But see also Alan Greenspan's chapter "Antitrust" in Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
SCOTUS is just an unprincipled organ of the criminal state, so it's not surprising how they rule. The supreme court is not a real court, and its mandate is not to do justice. It's to interpret edicts--commands, laws--issued by Congress. Its job has nothing to do with justice.
"Case in point: grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons are floating a $24.6 billion merger that regulators have been justifiably skeptical about."
Uh... no. Antitrust law is completely unjust and also unconstitutional. No company should have to get permission to do deals like this. It's not the state's business. The only real monopoly is that enforced by the state itself; I guess it doesn't like competition (shocker). See Rothbard, Man Economy and State, ch. 10 https://mises.org/online-book/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/10-monopoly-and-competition; Hoppe, TSC, ch. 9 http://hanshoppe.com/tsc; Armentano, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal https://mises.org/library/book/antitrust-case-repeal
"Fortunately, that didn’t happen and the UKIPO has sided with L V Bespoke and has granted it the mark."
The main purpose of getting a trademark is to have an IP right to use to bully other people though, to restrict their right to use a certain mark or name. So... this is not as heroic as you make it out to be. The little wanna-be bully defeated a bigger bully. Yay?
ALL IP law is evil and should be abolished: yes, patents are worst, followed by copyright, second worst, but trademark law is evil too. The problem here is not that LV did anything wrong, they were not "abusing" the law; the law, the law, the law itself is the problem, to paraphrase Burke.
"But, really, this just ends up highlighting (once again) the absolute ridiculousness of copyright in the modern world."
This implies that copyright used to be non-"ridiculous" in the previous, analog world, but that now, it's "gone too far." You can't solve a problem unless you strike at the root. The problem is copyright law and all forms of IP law, per se. The problem is not some particular "ridiculous" consequence. All copyright law consequences are unjust and "ridiculous," we are just used to some of them. The problem is copyright law. The solution is to abolish it, not to complain about conspicuously outrageous consequences or effects.
There is nothing good about copyright or indeed any form of IP. It is all completely evil and destructive. Unless we recognize this and call for its total and immediate and complete abolition, we are focusing on the wrong problem.
The obvious response to horror stories like these is: we should abolish copyright. Such policies and outcomes are a natural consequence of copyright law itself. The problem is not this particular law which is just an extension of the copyright mentality--it's copyright law itself. The only way to stop such outrages is to understand their root cause and to oppose them. The root case us copyright law. The solution is to abolish all copyright law. Unless one favors copyright abolition, whining about the consequences of copyright law is pointless.
The problem is defamation law
Of course almost no one strikes at the root and favors abolishing evil defamation law, which is the real problem. All these patches can't solve that. See Defamation as a Type of Intellectual Property. And the other problem is the CDA is unconstitutional, since as bad as state defamation law is, the Constitution does not authorize federal law that overrides state law. (The same is not true of the DMCA since that limits copyright liability, which is based on evil copyright law--another law that people who whine about the abuses of copyright do not really oppose.) All IP law, including especially patent and copyright (which is also unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment (Copyright is Unconstitutional)), but also trademark (which is also unconstitutional because the copyright clause does not include it) and the reputation rights of defamation law should be abolished. Until we do, no patches and tinkering can prevent the harms that inevitable come from these laws. See The Problem with Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes.
good one
Okay I have to admit, that one is funny.
stateless
who said anything about stateless? You don't have to be an anarchist to oppose the legitimacy of taxation, conscription, and the drug war. Once you have a powerful, dangerous state, it can violate rights, either substantively, by having unjust laws, or by ignoring prophylactic due process rights. The problem in the end is not due process it's that the state has power to decree whatever it wants to to be illegal.
ever hear of the drug war or conscription?
Uh, you are aware that it's currently legal for the state to imprison (enslave) you if you do things it outlaws, like (a) sell drugs, (b) evade taxes, (c) refuse to be conscripted. This is the nature of the state. It's criminal and evil already. Always has been.
Kidnapping, Taxes
If you can refer to a legal state action as "kidnapping" since it's unjust, then you should also refer to taxation as theft.
What a confused post
The problem with patents is one of morality: it's immoral to grant anti-competitive monopoly privileges to someone. Period. But once you have a patent system, nit-picking over the criteria the criminal fascist state's patent system employs to grant these monopoly privilege grants misses the point. It's not "immoral" to use knowledge that primitive savages choose not to patent and more than it's immoral to get any other patent. Do you guys really understand the problem with patents, or the purpose of property rights, or have any principles at all?
woops
hmm, my bad. I read quickly and made the wrong assumption it appears, I thought you were talking about state court lawsuits. I would think that your proposal would have some problems--Erie mandates the federal court apply state law. If state law permits a lawsuit, then how can a federal law prevent the suit filed under diversity jursidiction without running afoul of the Constitution and Erie. Not sure, I'd have to think about it.
at least i'm not anonymous
.
setting rules of judicial procedure
"How would it be unconstitutional? Congress is specifically empowered by the Constitution to set rules for judicial procedure and such, so where’s the issue?" Congress is empowered to set up the federal judiciary and its rules of procedure. But this article calls for "federal anti-SLAPP law that protects everyone from vexatious litigation designed to suppress speech"--including state lawsuits such as the one complained of here: in this case, someone sued Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State for defamation in state court under state law. Congress has no power to tell Georgia what laws or judicial procedure it may have.
Federal Anti-SLAPP power
"“There is no power enumerated in the Constitution that empowers Congress to enact such a law. It would be unconstitutional, not to mention a bad idea.” Since you failed to specify, I assume your comment addresses the “Case For A Federal Anti-SLAPP Law” as seen in the post title." Yes, I was actually referring to the actual post at issue here, which calls for a federal Anti-SLAPP law. "How do you defend this frivolous litigation?" I am not defending it. I am saying Congress has no power to do anything about it. Congress has no jurisdiction over internal state actions like lawsuits filed in state courts based on state law. As an example, there may be frivolous lawsuits filed in Canada or Germany as well, but Congress has no authority to limit them. Likewise it has no authority over the state governments or their legal systems, which are sovereign. See James J. Kilpatrick, The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007DNMIW/sr=1-1/qid=1154814003 "What is it the constitution is lacking, according to you." You may be unaware of this as most people do not know this and it's not widely taught in school, but the US federal government, while powerful, is unique in the world because it does not have general or plenary legislative or police power. It is a government of strictly limited and enumerated powers. It has no powers to act except those enumerated in the Constitution. This is why the Federalists didn't think a Bill of Rights was even necessary; for example they said there was no need for a First Amendment preventing Congress from abridging freedom of the press since there was no power granted to Congress to do this in the first place. The Anti-federalists did not trust this, however, so insisted on a Bill of Rights to make some of these implicit limits on federal power explicit; and to avoid the implication that these rights were listed because the federal government did have general legislative power, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were added to make it clear that the feds had only the enumerated powers, and the rest were reserved to the states and the people. See on this The Unique American Federal Government. https://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/10/the-unique-american-federal-government/ This is unlike normal states like, say, Canada or the UK or Germany, or US States like Texas or Colorado, which do have general (plenary) legislative and police power. So those states can enact any law they choose, unless it violates a right in their bill of rights. The Federal government cannot do this. It has to find an enumerated power to enact a law. Even if the law does not violate the Bill of Rights. And there is no power enumerated in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to regulate intra-state legal matters like the filing of lawsuits in state courts. Only the state governments have the power to enact Anti-SLAPP legislation.
First Amendment
"Exactly how is defending the First Amendment “unconstitutional?”: What is unconstitutional is a federal law regulating the filing of lawsuits in state courts, since there is no power enumerated in the Constitution for Congress to enact such a law. If you had not noticed, the First Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights which are limitations on federal power. They are not grants of power. In fact the Ninth Amendment was included precisely to prevent the rights in the bill of rights from being construed as grants of power.
State's business?
"Maybe it wasn’t the state’s business." Correct. State positive laws like this are unjust. They violate individual rights by punishing non-aggressive behavior. "But then Kroger and Albertsons specifically requested from them (by 1902 and 1960 respectively), and received, the special privilege of limited liability. They chose to get involved with the state, knowing that certain responsibilities come along with that." This does not follow, for several reasons. First, asking for, and receiving, a privilege, does not mean that this gives the state carte blanche to do what they want to these corporations. Second, they didn't "ask" for it. The state imposes this by threatening liability, where none should be imposed in the first place, unless the firm uses the corporate form. I have already explained all this in Corporate Personhood, Limited Liability, and Double Taxation. https://www.stephankinsella.com/2011/10/corporate-personhood-limited-liability-and-double-taxation/ Shareholders should not be liable in the first place for torts committed by employees of their company. Why should they be? So the state says: unless you incorporate we will subject you in our courts to unjust liability for acts of others; and when you are coerced into incorporating we will call it a privilege and now you can't complain if we double-tax your shareholders (since we now call the corporation a separate legal person) and you can't complain if we regulate you with antitrust law.
Antitrust
Because antitrust law violates individual rights by subjecting people to fines or punishment even though they have not committed aggression. The only laws that are just are those that prohibit aggression. Laws that punish non-aggressive behavior are themselves aggression and unjust. Businessmen/firms who collude do not violate rights since no one has a right to buy products from them at any specific price. Thus no just law can prohibit price fixing, monopolization, etc. I already gave references in my previous comment. But see also Alan Greenspan's chapter "Antitrust" in Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. SCOTUS is just an unprincipled organ of the criminal state, so it's not surprising how they rule. The supreme court is not a real court, and its mandate is not to do justice. It's to interpret edicts--commands, laws--issued by Congress. Its job has nothing to do with justice.
Ultra Vires
There is no power enumerated in the Constitution that empowers Congress to enact such a law. It would be unconstitutional, not to mention a bad idea.
Justifiably?
"Case in point: grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons are floating a $24.6 billion merger that regulators have been justifiably skeptical about." Uh... no. Antitrust law is completely unjust and also unconstitutional. No company should have to get permission to do deals like this. It's not the state's business. The only real monopoly is that enforced by the state itself; I guess it doesn't like competition (shocker). See Rothbard, Man Economy and State, ch. 10 https://mises.org/online-book/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market/10-monopoly-and-competition; Hoppe, TSC, ch. 9 http://hanshoppe.com/tsc; Armentano, Antitrust: The Case for Repeal https://mises.org/library/book/antitrust-case-repeal
But they want to be bullies too
"Fortunately, that didn’t happen and the UKIPO has sided with L V Bespoke and has granted it the mark." The main purpose of getting a trademark is to have an IP right to use to bully other people though, to restrict their right to use a certain mark or name. So... this is not as heroic as you make it out to be. The little wanna-be bully defeated a bigger bully. Yay? ALL IP law is evil and should be abolished: yes, patents are worst, followed by copyright, second worst, but trademark law is evil too. The problem here is not that LV did anything wrong, they were not "abusing" the law; the law, the law, the law itself is the problem, to paraphrase Burke.
Gee, I wonder what the solution is to a problem caused by the existence of defamation law....
hmm, could it be -- take the side of free speech and oppose defamation law as both immoral and unconstitutional?
Gee, I wonder what the solution is to a problem caused by the existence of copyright law....
hmmm, I can't quite put my finger on it.
So..... the obvious conclusion should be...
"But, really, this just ends up highlighting (once again) the absolute ridiculousness of copyright in the modern world." This implies that copyright used to be non-"ridiculous" in the previous, analog world, but that now, it's "gone too far." You can't solve a problem unless you strike at the root. The problem is copyright law and all forms of IP law, per se. The problem is not some particular "ridiculous" consequence. All copyright law consequences are unjust and "ridiculous," we are just used to some of them. The problem is copyright law. The solution is to abolish it, not to complain about conspicuously outrageous consequences or effects. There is nothing good about copyright or indeed any form of IP. It is all completely evil and destructive. Unless we recognize this and call for its total and immediate and complete abolition, we are focusing on the wrong problem.
Abolish copyright
The obvious response to horror stories like these is: we should abolish copyright. Such policies and outcomes are a natural consequence of copyright law itself. The problem is not this particular law which is just an extension of the copyright mentality--it's copyright law itself. The only way to stop such outrages is to understand their root cause and to oppose them. The root case us copyright law. The solution is to abolish all copyright law. Unless one favors copyright abolition, whining about the consequences of copyright law is pointless.