26 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo, if I could find misogynistic references anywhere in the Patristic writings, this would serve
I really have no clue how to provide such a list except to provide a complete set of Patristic writings.
as evidence for you that the Church had misogynistic tendencies?
Nemesio
26 May 06
Originally posted by NemesioNot necessarily. You must also have reason to think that it was widely accepted in the Church.
So, if I could find misogynistic references anywhere in the Patristic writings, this would serve
as evidence for you that the Church had misogynistic tendencies?
Nemesio
28 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI see you absolutely ignored my question; a basic one. I'm not surprised; I doubt you could give a definition of freedom that could be reconciled with your extreme views regarding suppression of speech. Here's a brief discussion of the idiocy of slander laws as presently applied focusing on Australia: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html
Oh yes, I remember you saying something about "free speech rights as they have been understood for centuries" before - but I don't remember a non-abusive response to the question of whether that permitted malicious slander. You keep talking about some fire in a crowded theater - why don't you actually explain to us, in clear and simple terms, why that can be legitimately restricted?
In effect, they are so vague that they encompass spoken criticisms that people make about many things every day and are tools of the rich and powerful. BTW, slander law themselves were meant to protect a person's reputation, so they should have no application at all regarding corporations or bodies like the RCC. Those are "things" not "persons"; it is quite frankly absurd fetishism to say that the RCC's "reputation" can be harmed. This is akin to saying my toaster's reputation can be harmed by me saying it makes crappy toast.
30 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm surprised you'd make such a silly counter-argument - after all, corporations/organisations do own something called 'brand equity' (marketing-speak for "reputation" ). Besides, corporations/organisations do have several privileges normally associated with persons - owning property, paying income taxes etc. So, your comparison of organisations to toasters is fallacious.
I see you absolutely ignored my question; a basic one. I'm not surprised; I doubt you could give a definition of freedom that could be reconciled with your extreme views regarding suppression of speech. Here's a brief discussion of the idiocy of slander laws as presently applied focusing on Australia: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/docume n to saying my toaster's reputation can be harmed by me saying it makes crappy toast.
My definition of freedom would not be too far from yours. But, unlike you, I keep the final end of our freedoms in mind when deciding where their limits lie. And that wouldn't be a view too dissimilar from that held by the people you always seem to cite.
30 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm not surprised that you fail to see the difference between corporations/organizations and persons since you don't understand Fundamental Rights theory. Corporations/organizations are GRANTED privileges; persons are BORN with rights. Corporations/organizations should only be granted those privileges which aid human freedom; allowing them to sue human beings for damaging their non-existent reputation is both completely unnecessary for any purpose the corporation/organization can legitimately pursue AND, as the article shows, is a severe restriction on speech both directly and as a means of suppressing future criticism.
I'm surprised you'd make such a silly counter-argument - after all, corporations/organisations do own something called 'brand equity' (marketing-speak for "reputation" ). Besides, corporations/organisations do have several privileges normally associated with persons - owning property, paying income taxes etc. So, your comparison of organisations to to ...[text shortened]... t wouldn't be a view too dissimilar from that held by the people you always seem to cite.
Please try to actually read some Paine or more recent stuff like Larry Tribe's regarding Fundamental rights, and in particular Free Speech, Theory; your extreme ignorance is only made worse by your arrogance ("fallacious" to compare one man made creation to another as regards "their" "right" to protect their "reputation"?).
EDIT: What, pray tell, is the "final end of freedom" in your view? Eternal salvation?
31 May 06
I'm always willing to help educate those in dire need like LH. Please read the details of the famous case of Peter Zenger in 1735 on the charge of "libeling" the royal Governor of New York at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zenger.html
Perhaps you'll understand then why slander and defamation cases on behalf of public figures, officials and powerful organizations (like the RCC) are disfavored in American law (probably you still won't get it, but hey I tried).
31 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't chase a strawman - I didn't say there was no difference between organisations and persons. But, since you continue to assert that I don't understand "Fundamental Rights theory", perhaps you can tell me which Secret Decoder Ring will help me understand that an organisation is not different from a toaster - yet an organisation is permitted to own property while a toaster is not.
I'm not surprised that you fail to see the difference between corporations/organizations and persons since you don't understand Fundamental Rights theory. Corporations/organizations are GRANTED privileges; persons are BORN with rights. Corporations/organizations should only be granted those privileges which aid human freedom; allowing them to sue human b ...[text shortened]... IT: What, pray tell, is the "final end of freedom" in your view? Eternal salvation?
You keep referring to reputations of organisations as "non-existent" - yet it's a matter of common sense that organisations do, in fact, have reputations. Further, it's both a matter of common sense and business understanding that an organisation's reputation has a significant impact on how it is able to operate.
Incidentally, you have yet to mount a coherent response as to why an organisation is allowed to sue a human being for an intellectual property rights (funny that - if organisations do not have "rights", why are they called "rights"?) violation but not libel.
Your citing of the article is quite disingenuous. The main thrust of the article is not a criticism of libel law per se, but a criticism of the manner in which libel cases move through the judicial system which, as the author makes quite clear, tends to favour rich persons/organisations over the "little guy". The "severe restriction of speech" and "supressing future criticism" bits are related to this disparity of justice - not the concept of libel law in itself.
Organisations, as associations of people (who, as you've said, are "BORN" with rights) are not given "privileges" as some arbitrary grant from society - they have rights that are extensions of the rights of the members whose interests they represent.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the link. However, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand - which is about libel/slander where the content of the accusation is false. Public figures, officials and "powerful" organisations do have the right, IMO, to defend themselves against false slander/libel.
I'm always willing to help educate those in dire need like LH. Please read the details of the famous case of Peter Zenger in 1735 on the charge of "libeling" the royal Governor of New York at http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zenger.html
Perhaps you'll understand then why slander and defamation cases on behalf of public fi ...[text shortened]... the RCC) are disfavored in American law (probably you still won't get it, but hey I tried).
You can't seem to tell the difference between false accusation and a true one - and neither, it seems, can your precious US legal system.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour doubly incoherent responses continue to show a basic misunderstanding of the problems involved. What is "false" cannot be determined without a trial and the fact is that allowing the rich and powerful the ability to sue someone on the basis of something THEY claim is "false" is DIRECTLY related to the misuse of slander law. Figure out why; no "Secret Decoder Ring" is required.
Thanks for the link. However, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand - which is about libel/slander where the content of the accusation is false. Public figures, officials and "powerful" organisations do have the right, IMO, to defend themselves against false slander/libel.
You can't seem to tell the difference between false accusation and a true one - and neither, it seems, can your precious US legal system.
Far smarter people than you, dealing with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years of experience and precedent, have shaped the US legal system's treatment of slander. It has been determined that the protection of the "reputations" of some rich folks and powerful organizations from supposedly "false" statements of others is far too nebulous a "good" to justify the extreme suppression of speech that freely allowing such lawsuits would lead to. That is an extremely rational judgment which provides the maximum protection for Fundamental Rights, protection of which is the very basis of organized society in the Lockean view. You've given zero reason to question that judgment, your anti-US, snotnose comments certainly don't rate as a rational argument. If you can't understand why Zenger is an important historical milestone in the development of American attitudes towards slander suits by the powerful, than you have my pity.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI already explained to you why an organization is allowed certain privileges; have someone read my post to you SLOWLY. If it was determined by society that a toaster owning property would serve a societal purpose it would be allowed to, too. This does not change the fact that organizations and toasters are man made creations that have only those privileges granted by society and are not entitled to anything.
Don't chase a strawman - I didn't say there was no difference between organisations and persons. But, since you continue to assert that I don't understand "Fundamental Rights theory", perhaps you can tell me which Secret Decoder Ring will help me understand that an organisation is not different from a toaster - yet an organisation is permitted extensions of the rights of the members whose interests they represent.
If other people engage in fetishism, that's their problem. Giving attributes like a "reputation" to an artificial entity is irrational. Your "common sense" is nonsense.
An organization is given the ability to protect intellectual property rights, like individuals are, because it has been determined by society that this aids economic activity at little cost to any legitimate right. This is a rational judgment, though a contrary one would be too. Since it has been determined that the use of libel laws in the extremely free way you desire would be a serious impediment to the Fundamental Right of free expression and thus violate the Natural Law, it has been determined that organizations and public figures can use libel suits only under extreme and narrowly defined conditions. This makes sense IF you want to have a free country, though it may be inconvenient to powerful people and organizations (hey they can't have everything, though they want it).
People use the term "rights" in an imprecise manner; I don't. When I use the term "right" I am referring to rights in the Lockean sense; since this is a discussion regarding law and since US law is based on Lockean Fundamental Rights theory, you should use the term in the same way.
You obviously didn't bother to read the article in detail. The article's main thrust is that the whole concept of libel laws have endemic difficulties in a modern legal system. These problems are made worse by freely allowing libel suits by powerful people and organizations. You might also want to re-read the first few paragraphs where the author points out that the average person makes statements every day that are arguably "libelous" and thus could be actionable under the lax standards you seem to support. It might be high time to reconsider the whole tort of defamation; what does even a real person's "reputation" mean in this age of mass communication and blogs? With such easy access to information, any "harm" to a someone's "reputation" can be addressed by more effective methods than a law suit these days.
Your last paragraph is misleading and imprecise. The grant of privileges to organizations CAN be a logical way of protecting the rights of the members of the organization but this is certainly not an "extension" of such personal and inalienable rights. In any event, this has no bearing on the discussion we are having; you have failed to give any reason why allowing the RCC to sue someone for libel is related to ANY right that individual members of the RCC have. I await some reason why the suppression of another's speech regarding an organization is required to protect some other individual's Fundamental Rights.
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderGee, what's a modern legal system, I wonder.
I already explained to you why an organization is allowed certain privileges; have someone read my post to you SLOWLY. If it was determined by society that a toaster owning property would serve a societal purpose it would be allowed to, too. This does not change the fact that organizations and toasters are man made creations that have only those privileg ...[text shortened]... on is required to protect some other individual's Fundamental Rights.