“What is truth?” said Pilate.
As Wikipedia summarises:
Yes, truth is a defence; but what is truth?
Two different lawyers will argue for different meanings of the truth, and then 6 or 12 citizens are asked to determine the truth.
Lots of scope there for the finders of fact to chew on, and then having made their factual determination, to make a subjective-objective application of the law to the facts.
Libel and slander, in U.S. jurisprudence, are very hard to prove to a standard that overrides the First Amendment. Thus such lawsuits are less common here than in many other Western countries.
For public figures, yes, but the actual malice standard does not apply in all defamation cases.
That some statements are ambiguous does not imply that all statements are ambiguous. If I say “so-and-so is a thief” because I got a bad deal on some transaction, then maybe there is some wiggle room for a jury to deal with. If I say that because so-and-so has been convicted of robbing a bank, it’s not such a difficult problem.
My point is that there is a bright line: if I keep my statements to ones that are factually true, then I can have pretty high confidence I won’t lose a defamation case. If it drifts into more subjective statements, then maybe I have more to worry about.
I’d be very worried about a system that descended into epistemological madness when asked to slot basic factual statements into true/false/unproven categories.
All of the recent angst in the US comes from a very real fear of going the way of Hungary where a judge can straight-facedly say that black is white, white is red, and you are jailed or bankrupted for any reason or no reason, but mostly for the reason that jailing / bankrupting you is how the judge gets paid more.
Once you / we all decide you / we all don’t trust the courts to be honest, it’s time to retire the default legalistic mindset we all inherited that says the rules actually matter. e.g. Russian courts are Calvinball and it truly does not matter what their constitution or laws say. That’s just a fig leaf for the actual rules: pure Calvinball.
There are many, many countries on the planet today where Calvinball is the situation, at least where the interests of the fatcats and ruling cliques are involved.
Quibbling about how we should rewrite the rules in e.g. the USA about e.g. free speech is a productive use of time & brain bytes ONLY if you believe in the rule of law honesty and diligently applied. Once your society can’t deliver that, quite debating rules and move on to debating revolution.
Or a nipple, or an F bomb.
I guess the question is X (née Twitter) more similar to the phone company or the television network? Like Frank can’t sue Verizon if John calls him up and calls him a pedophile, but he can sue if John runs an add.
Not defamation; you can’t defame someone to their face. If Frank calls John a pedophile, and only John hears, that’s not defamation, because defamation is when you damage someone’s reputation to the public.
I’m not sure that’s the case. Newspapers that publish adverts generally aren’t responsible for teh content? But I could be wrong on that. My understanding is that s. 230 is meant to treat social media in the same way as newspapers.
While that’s undoubtedly true, it doesn’t follow that we should give them infinite freedom. Maybe we should just have one law, “don’t be an asshole,” and place our confidence in the courts to interpret that as justly as possible.
Well, it doesn’t work on a web forum, so I suspect it won’t work in a country, either. There is a middle ground between no bright lines vs. bright lines everywhere. Yes, we have to place some confidence in the courts, but at the same time, we want rules that people can follow and have some confidence in whether they’re breaking them or not.
Agreed.
I was protesting the folks who said in effect: “Any rule might be suborned, so we must remain with 1A absolutism forever!!11!!” I was calling out the contradiction inherent in their position.
Despite the fact the 1A isn’t really all that absolute. And despite the fact, as explained by various folks in other countries, that they somehow get good results with less absolutism and more common sense restrictions sensibly implemented.
But what if choosing not to give power to the courts means that individuals and groups are put at increased risk? As mentioned, the Canadian experience is that these provisions are used to protect members of minority groups, from things like death threats.
Saying that we shouldn’t give a power to a court isn’t an abstract issue about judicial power; it can have a real effect on people who find they are not protected by the law.
Someone touched on it earlier, but I have become very comfortable with restricting campaign spending—e.g., all the PAC dollars that Citizen’s United unleashed. As I recall, that decision relied heavily on the notion that quid pro quo expenditures, or even the appearance of quid pro quo, were beyond the pale. True enough, but where they dropped the ball was concluding that entities such as Super PACs wouldn’t exert such influence.
I remember seeing a poll on MSNBC a few years ago, shortly after the Vegas mass shooting, that showed that something like 96% of the American people (gun owners included) agreed on a number of gun restrictions. And those restrictions had zero chance of being installed because of organizations like the NRA, who at least at that point had that power to bulldoze vulnerable candidates who dared to defy the gun lobby.
That’s wrong. Restricting their free speech is okay by me. I think we should mirror some other perfectly free countries who have hard limits on campaign spending, period.
Though it’s true that the US political and judiciary system is an absolute poo-filled dumpster fire right now, where the honesty and diligent application of the rule of law is in jeopardy. It’s also true that for the most part that is due to the unwritten parts of the US political system, where it was predicated on politicians behaving somewhat reasonably and ethically, and having some modicum of respect for the rule of law and the good of the Republic.
The actual written bits of the constitution have held up relatively well, given the shitshow we find ourselves in. Case in point my example above even the most partisan Trump appointed judge would not let a law stand that made it illegal to say
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. Even though there are plenty of people (some of whom might have been POTUS) who want a law like that
This is why I said it’s a polite fiction.
But are we talking an actual death threat, or only something that can be interpreted that way if you already know the motivations of the speaker? And if those motivations are known, there are probably more direct ways of addressing them.
In the US, even calls to violence are protected, except in the case where it is intended to incite violence, or where there is a legitimate expression of intent. So I can say “Death to all X”, and mean it, unless I’m at a rally or something and possibly inciting a riot. It couldn’t be a legitimate threat because I obviously couldn’t kill all X personally. A more targeted threat, say against a particular member of X, might be.
At any rate–is there evidence that these laws achieve their aims? Canada certainly has a lower murder rate than the US, but it’s not so obvious that the difference is in any way connected to tighter restrictions on speech.
Yes, we differ on that,
Violence and menace can be conferred quite well without that, e.g. someone offering “protection” or “nice family you have there” or “I’ll make you an offer you can’t refuse”
And even the most obvious violent content may be benign e.g. “I’ll kill you”
No, we shouldn’t completely silence them. As tempting as it is.
Remember, my starting point here was not in support of criminalising that phrase. It was merely a recognition that the phrase itself can be used a call for violence.
I have the context, intent and the stated positions of the users that lead me to the opinion that it can be used in both malign and benign ways.
Do you really think that Hamas supporters use the phrase in benign way?
Regardless, I wouldn’t criminalise it but it is ludicrous to claim that it cannot be used as a threat.
In the case of the individual campaigning for the House of Commons, at an all-candidates forum in a high school he stated that his position was that all homosexuals should be executed.
One international comparative study I read some years ago indicated that on a per capita basis the US had the highest number of active neo-Nazi and Klan-affiliated groups compared to Canada and Western European countries which have hate speech laws.
Don’t have a cite, as it was several years ago and I can’t remember the source, sorry.
I concur BUT the danger is … what if they’re right and they suppress the news because they don’t want the facts to come to life. For example, suppose someone in 1986 told about how the US government was selling arms to Iran and they were shut down because we all know that was a silly conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.