5 ms·

Yeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.

by jMyles 8y ago

joshe 8y ago
If they are sharing true facts, they can harm your reputation anytime they want. Individuals can harm other people's reputation with true facts too. Defamation/slander/libel is only when someone harms your reputation with false facts. It's hard to win defamation suits. Doesn't make it nice of course. But not every cruel thing is illegal.
- jMyles 8y ago
  ...but then isn't that true for everybody? If this is indeed extortion on the basis that it is demanding money under threat of harm to reputation, then isn't it equally true when the state does it? That was the original point above.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  Interestingly enough, blackmail statues usually apply even when the information at issue is TRUE. Read the article I linked to elsewhere -- it opens with an interesting comment that blackmail is a paradox -- it's criminalizing a consensual transaction between two people, regarding otherwise Constitutionally protected behavior.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
Yes. That is true. It would be kind of crazy if it weren't.
- jMyles 8y ago
  Crazy in what way? Can you show me a precedent that shows that state agents are immune from the typical ramifications of defamation?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Making true statements is not defamation. If they do want to lie, the general legal concept that protects the government is sovereign immunity. You can only sue the government for libel if they let you. It's crazy because the government has to be able to make true statements that hurt others' reputation in order to do a lot of stuff that it does, or simply to publish information openly. For example, imagine a document justifying choosing one paving company over another.
    - jMyles 8y ago
      Well, presumably if it was a section 1983 matter you'd sue the individual state agent, so I don't really see what sovereign immunity has to do with anything here. And yeah, so again, back to the original comment: presumably you or I are just as free to do things like you've listed. If I choose one paving company over another, I can publish my reasons for doing so. I can even offer to remove that post is the latter pays me to do so (this is essentially Yelp's business model, right? gross.) So how will the system treat this as different?

Yeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.

by jMyles 8y ago

Yeah? Is that true? Can the government capriciously harm someone's reputation with no legal basis? I doubt that. At the very least, it's a civil matter.

joshe 8y ago

If they are sharing true facts, they can harm your reputation anytime they want. Individuals can harm other people's reputation with true facts too. Defamation/slander/libel is only when someone harms your reputation with false facts. It's hard to win defamation suits. Doesn't make it nice of course. But not every cruel thing is illegal.

jMyles 8y ago
...but then isn't that true for everybody? If this is indeed extortion on the basis that it is demanding money under threat of harm to reputation, then isn't it equally true when the state does it? That was the original point above.
URSpider94 8y ago
Interestingly enough, blackmail statues usually apply even when the information at issue is TRUE. Read the article I linked to elsewhere -- it opens with an interesting comment that blackmail is a paradox -- it's criminalizing a consensual transaction between two people, regarding otherwise Constitutionally protected behavior.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

Yes. That is true. It would be kind of crazy if it weren't.

jMyles 8y ago
Crazy in what way? Can you show me a precedent that shows that state agents are immune from the typical ramifications of defamation?
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Making true statements is not defamation. If they do want to lie, the general legal concept that protects the government is sovereign immunity. You can only sue the government for libel if they let you. It's crazy because the government has to be able to make true statements that hurt others' reputation in order to do a lot of stuff that it does, or simply to publish information openly. For example, imagine a document justifying choosing one paving company over another.
  - jMyles 8y ago
    Well, presumably if it was a section 1983 matter you'd sue the individual state agent, so I don't really see what sovereign immunity has to do with anything here. And yeah, so again, back to the original comment: presumably you or I are just as free to do things like you've listed. If I choose one paving company over another, I can publish my reasons for doing so. I can even offer to remove that post is the latter pays me to do so (this is essentially Yelp's business model, right? gross.) So how will the system treat this as different?