🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:16:32 -0800, "D.Hu" <dhu@smartt.com> wrote:

>Arlo Smith wrote:
>> 
>> : >Free speech must be an absolute right....
>> 
>> If it were an absolute right, then, for example, slander and libel would no
>> longer be criminal offenses.
>> 
>> What you say can do harm, so what you're really asking for is the freedom
>> to do people harm by speech.
>> 
>	As with all kinds of freedoms, there are boundaries. Otherwise, might will
>really be right. Slander and libel is based on the same principle as personal
>assault. You simply cannot, in a civilized society, go about with all shoulders
>and elbows, hurting people by any means.
>
>	The legal basis for slander and libel are based on the content being presented
>to or made available to everyone, without supporting facts, which would lower
>the plaintiff's esteem, in the eyes of his/her peers. The plaintiff must prove
>that the "speech" has done that kind of harm, AND has suffered financial and/or
>other losses as a result. AND, a lesser proof is that the defendent KNEW that
>the content of the "speech" was NOT true or not accurate but still proceeded to
>make it known by the general public.
>
>	IF the defendent genuinely believes in what he/she said as being true, with
>his/her supporting "evidence", then the plaintiff does not have a case.
>
>	In other words, it is very difficult to nail somebody with a slander or libel
>suit and win. I think that's enough protection for freedom of speech.
>
>> --
  There are several issues here. I must first make the disclaimer that
I am utterly opposed to racism , gender stereotyping (sexism) or
anything that hinders people in reaching their potential
 In any society we can only go by the rules as laid out by that
society.Or not and suffer the penalties. To my mind Jason was probably
wronged and these actions promulgate the very thing that the VFN was
opposing. Retroactive penalties are certainly undemocratic.
 Another issue is the one that has focused so many defenders of the
I-net. Is the carrier guilty of the same offense as the perpetrator ?
 By that logic a mailman or the postal service could find themselves
liable to prosecution for a letter-bomb or tracts mailed as conspiracy
This sort of control is presently being used by oppressive regimes the
world over e.g. China and Indonesia . It is the thin edge of
repression and IMHO must be opposed. 
Web pages are a different animal and the carrier should be responsable
after proper notification.
  The other issue is what you have addressed above and I agree with
your presentation except it doesn't take into account that in the
practical world the wealthy can use it to suppress things they don't
like under threat of the costs of litigation, as in the Reichman
biography case. Ontario especially has wealth friendly libel and
slander laws which can discourage the faint hearted 
   The VFN board was likely well-meaning but they were WRONG, WRONG,
WRONG, if not simply gutless like Compuserve in Germany, if the facts
as presented were true.

ciao   larry

  

"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of
 predjudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of 18."
...Albert Einstein