4 ms·

If the UK's notion of libel were applied to the scenario of the article, Robert Frese would be required to prove that his statements were truthful, rather than

If the UK's notion of libel were applied to the scenario of the article, Robert Frese would be required to prove that his statements were truthful, rather than the police/prosecution proving Robert knew he was lying. That's obscene. Think about how hard each of those would be to prove. To prove he knew he was lying would almost require that he admitted it in writing or was recorded admitting it. But for a man like Robert Frese to prove that the police were dirty would be almost impossible, the FBI often has difficulty proving that crooked cops are crooked, and they have a lot more resources than just some guy who trash-talked the police. Requiring Robert Frese to prove himself correct is totally unreasonable. Requiring the prosecution to prove Robert Frese knew he was lying is the only semi-sane approach to criminal libel (the criminality of libel is dubious in the first place.) If you want stronger libel laws to hold corporations accountable, you need to first stop treating corporations and individuals as the same. Applying the same standard to both will create a situation where either corporations are relatively free to say anything, or create a situation where individuals are crushed under the force of laws designed to be forceful enough to beat corporations into compliance. But until that separation happens, having laws that protect people like Robert Frese is the sane default.

coldtea 8y ago
>If the UK's notion of libel were applied to the scenario of the article, Robert Frese would be required to prove that his statements were truthful, rather than the police/prosecution proving Robert knew he was lying. That's obscene. Is it? If he can't prove his statements were true (eg. if he doesn't have hard facts baking him), then why was he making them? That said, often those things (dirty police, dirty corporations, etc) are right there obvious to most, and you can't prove them because of course they're careful -- e.g. they might even admit it to your face, but never on record.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Yes, that's obscene. It should be legal for private citizens to call a cop dirty without first launching a huge FBI investigation into the police department to prove it. Often times those FBI investigations only take place because private citizens bring federal attention to the local situation by calling cops dirty loudly and often.
- cruella_deville 8y ago
  proof doesnt matter, they have immunity from prosecution, and its near impossible to prove they are acting beyond thier legal authority or as an unreasonable person. They should have consequences to fear when they screw up just like everybody else does.
- convivialdingo 8y ago
  Sometimes when one person speaks out, all the others that were afraid to speak come out as well. Shield laws and other legal protections are already incredibly strong in the USA. It would be a mistake to make police practically exempt from public restraint. I would also be afraid that the media would face more targeting legal attacks and restraints from investigating possible corruption. They operate under the same laws as everyone else.
briandear 8y ago
If you are going to defame someone, ought truth be a basic requirement? How can you prove a negative; how can cops prove they aren’t corrupt? Much easier to prove something happen rather than proving something didn’t happen, unless there is a specific incident in question.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Being able to prove the truth of what you say ought not be a legal requirement. If you want somebody prosecuted for their speech, you should be forced to prove they were knowingly lying.

coldtea 8y ago

>If the UK's notion of libel were applied to the scenario of the article, Robert Frese would be required to prove that his statements were truthful, rather than the police/prosecution proving Robert knew he was lying. That's obscene. Is it? If he can't prove his statements were true (eg. if he doesn't have hard facts baking him), then why was he making them? That said, often those things (dirty police, dirty corporations, etc) are right there obvious to most, and you can't prove them because of course they're careful -- e.g. they might even admit it to your face, but never on record.

darkpuma 8y ago
Yes, that's obscene. It should be legal for private citizens to call a cop dirty without first launching a huge FBI investigation into the police department to prove it. Often times those FBI investigations only take place because private citizens bring federal attention to the local situation by calling cops dirty loudly and often.
cruella_deville 8y ago
proof doesnt matter, they have immunity from prosecution, and its near impossible to prove they are acting beyond thier legal authority or as an unreasonable person. They should have consequences to fear when they screw up just like everybody else does.
convivialdingo 8y ago
Sometimes when one person speaks out, all the others that were afraid to speak come out as well. Shield laws and other legal protections are already incredibly strong in the USA. It would be a mistake to make police practically exempt from public restraint. I would also be afraid that the media would face more targeting legal attacks and restraints from investigating possible corruption. They operate under the same laws as everyone else.

briandear 8y ago

If you are going to defame someone, ought truth be a basic requirement? How can you prove a negative; how can cops prove they aren’t corrupt? Much easier to prove something happen rather than proving something didn’t happen, unless there is a specific incident in question.

darkpuma 8y ago
Being able to prove the truth of what you say ought not be a legal requirement. If you want somebody prosecuted for their speech, you should be forced to prove they were knowingly lying.