01 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderSimply saying it's "DIRECTLY related to the misuse of slander law" does not make it so. In fact, the whole point of the Zenger case (from a legal standpoint) was to establish truth as a defence against accusations of slander - your link mentions this explicitly. If a person makes public factual allegations against another person or organisation, he should have the evidence to back it up. If he has sufficient evidence, then any well-organised legal system should be able to handle the case quickly and correctly - if yours can't, then it's your problem.
Your 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 "Secre ...[text shortened]... merican attitudes towards slander suits by the powerful, than you have my pity.
Your whole "rich and powerful" tirade is getting tiresome. For one thing, it's not as though your legal system establishes a level playing field anyhow - the "rich and powerful" get far better representation in court in virtually all classes of cases. For another thing, isn't equality under the law a fundamental maxim of your legal system? If it's biased against the "rich and powerful", how is that equality?
And don't give me that "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years of experience and precedent" clap-trap either - virtually every other modern legal system can claim exactly the same thing. And many of them have had the benefit of learning from the mistakes in the US system.
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderR e a d i n g y o u r p o s t s l o w l y d o e s n o t m a k e i t a n y l e s s r i d i c u l o u s . A t o a s t e r a n d a n o r g a n i s a t i o n a r e t w o v e r y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s .
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.
Organisations have privileges not simply because society deems it beneficial - but because they are associations of people. This can be easily illustrated in the case of a corporation. A corporation has property rights because, ultimately, the property is held in lieu of its shareholders. If a corporation were not granted those rights, that would be tantamount to denying them to its shareholders. There is nothing arbitrary about these privileges - they are a direct extension of the rights of the people involved.
Further, because organisations are associations of people, the reputation of the organisation has a direct bearing on the reputations of its members. This is especially true of socio-cultural organisations like the RCC. Further, if centuries of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism have taught us anything, it is that malicious, false slander in those circumstances can contribute to disastrous consequences.
Finally, and I have to point this out time and again because you just don't seem to get it, it is virtually only in the US that slander laws are used in the extremely constrained and virtually toothless fashion you seem to prefer. Other democracies (some of them larger than the US, some of them older than the US) have found, through experience, that legitimate uses of the freedom of speech are not constrained by more meaningful slander laws. And, as I've repeatedly pointed out, many of them have seen the arguments of US courts and rejected them. Are you claiming that the only reasonable jurists operate in the United States?
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI agree with this and the title of the thread demonstrates it.
Further, because organisations are associations of people, the reputation of the organisation has a direct bearing on the reputations of its members.
However when an organisation becomes too big, or a brand becomes too well known, it changes the equation.
I would consider it permisible to make a satire or write fiction about both religions and very large organisations including governments, and corporations. Why isnt the US government suing any novel writer that mentions dirty deeds by the CIA?
I do think that the RCC should be able to require that any book published or movie that mentions them in a bad light should explicitly state that it is entirely a work of fiction, unlike the book in question which tries very hard to imply that there is more truth to it than meets the eye.
There is always a fine line between freedom of speach and preventing slander and there is always missuse of both.
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerA corporation has no "rights" including the right to exist. Corporations are created by positive law and their existence is not a required part of a just society. You continue to engage in fetishism and confusion regarding Fundamental Rights theory. Your argument is absurd; denying a corporation the right to own property is not denying its individual shareholders the right to own property. Do you really believe such nonsense? Maybe corporations should be able to vote in Presidential elections, too since as it is now the individual shareholders are being denied the right to vote under your "logic". Laughable. You also might want to look up the meaning of the word "direct".
R e a d i n g y o u r p o s t s l o w l y d o e s n o t m a k e i t a n y l e s s r i d i c u l o u s . A t o a s t e r a n d a n o r g a n i s a t i o n a r e t w o v e r y d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s .
Organisations have privileges not simply because society deems it beneficial - but because they are assoc ...[text shortened]... rejected them. Are you claiming that the only reasonable jurists operate in the United States?
Toasters and organizations are different things but their status of entitlement to rights is the same - they have none. Your hysterical reaction and veiled "what about Hitler" scare tactics prove nothing except that fear mongers like you can find a way to justify any suppression of speech for the "greater good".
What you can't grasp is that limited government is a critical part of the idea of Fundamental rights theory. Having slander laws that "protect the reputation" of an organization against individual citizens is a massive extension of governmental power in direct opposition to the basic human right of free speech. No matter how many countries allow this, they are still violative of human freedom and rights. Your support for this is about the same as supporting other suppression of speech, like direct censorship on political, religious or other grounds. So you don't support freedom at all. Why don't you just admit it?
01 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, I tried. Your extremely crabbed reading of Zenger to be consistent with your beliefs but not the beliefs of the Framers is typical. Allowing easy access to lawsuits on such unnecessary grounds invariably aids those who have the wherewithal to engage in such frivilous pursuits. Saying every single public statement made by any individual can cause a law suit if somebody claims it is false is a good recipe for suppressing speech, but serves no other useful purpose.
Simply saying it's "DIRECTLY related to the misuse of slander law" does not make it so. In fact, the whole point of the Zenger case (from a legal standpoint) was to establish truth as a defence against accusations of slander - your link mentions this explicitly. If a person makes public factual allegations against another person or organisation ...[text shortened]... ny of them have had the benefit of learning from the mistakes in the US system.
02 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not "hysterical reaction" - it's learning from the past.
A corporation has no "rights" including the right to exist. Corporations are created by positive law and their existence is not a required part of a just society. You continue to engage in fetishism and confusion regarding Fundamental Rights theory. Your argument is absurd; denying a corporation the right to own property is not denying its individual sha ...[text shortened]... other grounds. So you don't support freedom at all. Why don't you just admit it?
People have the right to associate for joint expression of their rights. Disagree?
A corporation is simply one form of association to express a particular class of rights, viz., the right to own means of production. Voting rights are irrelevant here because it does not belong to the class of rights that corporations are created for. If there were a separate form of association, one of whose purposes was to express voting rights, then denial of voting rights to such an association would indeed be a denial of the right to vote for members.
Oh, wait a minute - you've already got that in your Presidential election system (which, IMO, is the most convoluted and least democratic Presidential electoral procedure in the world). States operate as "corporate" voting bodies for their voters.
Having slander laws that "protect the reputation" of an organization against individual citizens is a massive extension of governmental power in direct opposition to the basic human right of free speech.
As I said before, simply repeating it does not make it true. If human beings have a right to privacy (the kind that means what it says on the tin) and the right to enjoy the just fruits of their labour then they have a right to a fair reputation - and it is the government's job to protect it. That fundamental right is not abrogated by their membership in an organisation. Nor by the fact that American Founding Fathers did not include it in the Constitution.
The US Constitution is not the be-all and end-all of Fundamental Rights. Not by a long way.
Your support for this is about the same as supporting other suppression of speech, like direct censorship on political, religious or other grounds. So you don't support freedom at all.
Now who's being hysterical?
02 Jun 06
Originally posted by no1marauderMy crabbed reading of Zenger? You're the one turning it into a poster-case for Marxist social conflict. The clear thrust of the article you cited is that one should have the freedom to speak truthfully in the public sphere. It's not a defence of unlimited speech rights as you suggest. Please at least read the articles that you cite.
Well, I tried. Your extremely crabbed reading of Zenger to be consistent with your beliefs but not the beliefs of the Framers is typical. Allowing easy access to lawsuits on such unnecessary grounds invariably aids those who have the wherewithal to engage in such frivilous pursuits. Saying every single public statement made by any individual can cause a ...[text shortened]... claims it is false is a good recipe for suppressing speech, but serves no other useful purpose.
02 Jun 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat's the point, Doc: it was modern then, for some mysterious reason, just as future historians will look back on our present system and wonder how we could have been such baffoons.
In part, it is one in which trial by ordeal presided over by religious authority does not constitute due process.
02 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI've read that article and studied the Zenger trial transcripts, newspaper accounts of the time and some comments by the Framers regarding it. Have you? Of course not. As I suspected, you are too brainwashed to see that Zenger is supportive of a broad principle, not merely a limited holding. And it was seen as such 250+ years ago.
My crabbed reading of Zenger? You're the one turning it into a poster-case for Marxist social conflict. The clear thrust of the article you cited is that one should have the freedom to speak truthfully in the public sphere. It's not a defence of unlimited speech rights as you suggest. Please at least read the articles that you cite.
02 Jun 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerEvery time you write anything on the US system, you show your massive confusion and ignorance. No associations are ALLOWED to form so they can vote even though voting is a right (or more precisely, a tool used to actualize a right). You have been arguing that it is somehow a violation of someone rights if an organization that they belong to isn't granted the same "rights" as an individual is. This remains nonsense, no matter how many different words you use to express this idiotic idea.
It's not "hysterical reaction" - it's learning from the past.
People have the right to associate for joint expression of their rights. Disagree?
A corporation is simply one form of association to express a particular class of rights, viz., the right to own means of production. Voting rights are irrelevant here because it does not belong to the c ...[text shortened]... her grounds. So you don't support freedom at all.
Now who's being hysterical?[/b]
Whether rights are expressly included in the US Constitution or not is irrelevant to their existence. This is so basic that I am continually amazed by people's inability to grasp it. You have no fundamental right to a "reputation"; that's ridiculous. And going from your own non-existent reputational rights to then expand it to giving every organization you belong to the same "right" is doubly ridiculous. It is not the government's job to make sure everybody is thought of by everybody else in the way they desire.