You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] corsairio ago  (edited ago)

Freedom of speech means that I can say anything I want so long as I'm not infringing another person's natural right. Not having people incite violence against me is also not something that is just naturally not going to happen. People can do that without anything happening to me. It's only when they are unjustly violent when I become violated.

Beyond that, from a pragmatic point of view, libel law is always used by the establishment to hush up dissent, be it in business or otherwise.

0
0

[–] Benanov ago 

I think that's really naïve. Libel (and slander) does damage reputationally and monetarily - which is why it's a big thing in tort law.

A method of redress using court system on presenting falsehoods as the truth that damages someone's reputation is not an infringement of 1A rights.

Remember, the truth is an affirmative defense against libel in the US. (It's not in the UK.)

0
0

[–] corsairio ago  (edited ago)

Have you ever been in a debate before? A real, Oxford style debate where you are given a side to advocate. How is that supposed to exist if you just made the losing side criminal?

Our system is built upon Enlightenment ideals, which in turn could only exist after Descartes shifted the arbiter of truth from institutions to individuals. Even if people cannot see a shadow of a doubt regarding a statement, opposing statements should still be able to be viewed so that they could arrive at their conclusion or so that future redress can be made. Inhibiting oppositional viewpoints leads to mistruth because there are some topics where politics trumps truth. That includes playing the devil's advocate.

Besides, these people should really grow a pair. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.