Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!ntt
From: ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Law design resembling software design?
Message-ID: <957@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 29-Jun-84 13:31:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.957
Posted: Fri Jun 29 13:31:44 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 00:57:56 EDT
Distribution: can
Organization: NTT Systems Inc., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 35

Note: this article was posted with "Distribution: can".  Be sure this line
is included in the header of any follow-ups.

A recent court ruling in Alberta has declared that a section of the new
law on election spending violates our constitutional guarantee of free
speech and expression.  I think the thought processes of the people who
drafted that law were mimicking those of some people who write software.
I reconstruct the development as follows:

[1] Let's have a law limiting the amount of advertising in an election.
[2] The natural way to do it is to limit the number of dollars a candidate
    can spend on advertising.
[3] Yes, but what if a non-candidate wants to run an advertisement advocating
    that some candidate be elected?
[4] Then that is like a campaign contribution, and the candidate should be
    made to count it in their limited spending.
[5] But then a non-candidate could spend a lot of money on POOR ads for the
    candidate, quickly, and the candidate's campaign would be sabotaged.
    Also, what about non-candidates who advertise that you should vote for,
    say, candidate A or B but not C or D?
[6] Ah, yes, that's a problem.  Oh, I have it!  Let us say that before any
    advertisement about who you should vote for (or against) is run, the
    candidate or candidates that it favors have to approve it.
[7] But what if none of them wants to, like in the first case in "[5]"?

    (Ready?)

[8] Hmm, I guess you're right, that's still a problem.  I give up.
    *This case is too difficult to handle.  So let's just make it illegal.*

Only since it was not computer people but legislators talking, the meaning
of "illegal" is, well, "illegal"!  I'm just glad this was passed *after*
the new constitution became effective.

Mark Brader