3 ms·

I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me

I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?

fulafel 5y ago
Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.
- xdennis 5y ago
  I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.
    - xdennis 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.
      - dghlsakjg 5y ago
        I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example. Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future
Dylan16807 5y ago
Even if we assume those are the best metrics, if something has to be shown to be in the public interest, rather than just not against the public interest, that's quite a high bar.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  Publishing the contents of my diary is not against the public interest. I'd still be quite upset if you did that, especially if picked events to make me look bad. (Yet, you wouldn't need to be lying. I've done things I'm not proud of, that I try to hide.) If ever it becomes in the public interest to publish my secrets (e.g. if I'm claiming no affiliation with an organisation I used to work with, while awarding them grants) then go ahead. But until then, my private life is my private life.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Well that's why I said "if we assume those are the best metrics". Privacy would be an additional one. I wasn't trying to make a full and ideal rule set, just pointing out that the one you said is extremely narrow and even really bad free speech rules could pass it. Like one that prevents me from talking about someone in a park playing with a kite.
drzaiusapelord 5y ago
There really arent any. Hate speech isn't "true" regardless of your basement phrenologists Roganism's that this race or that ethnicity is "inferior" to a white person due to skull or brain size. Or doctored studies that purposely dont take poverty and other things into account. The other category is libel/slander which is properly protected in the UK where a real burden of proof is put on the person making the claim, meanwhile in the USA, "news" shows lie with impunity, and almost always for the benefit of the oligarchy. Its a better system than the USA's and by far. Right-wing types, who also dominate this forum, dislike it because it limits the lies and racism and islomaphobia they so deeply identify with, and is reinforced to them by the dishonest right-wing media they consume which has almost no limits on dishonest or hateful speech in the USA. So its an ugly cycle of extremists radicalizing new extremists for political gain (read: faithful GOP voters) by the billionaire owners of these media outlets who gain from these narratives both politically and economically.
- legalcorrection 5y ago
  In the UK the cops will knock on your door if you misgender someone on Twitter.
denton-scratch 5y ago
Ah, "in the public interest". There's no such provision in thew USA, and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions (a member of the government) to determine what is in the public interest. It is absolutely forbidden to report on family court proceedings; there is no public interest defence.

I didn't think it was ever illegal to say things that were true, justified, and in the public interest to have spoken. Could you give some examples (or point me at the relevant laws) please?

fulafel 5y ago

Having to prove those things in court, under threat of penalties, is quite a big damper on freedom of press.

xdennis 5y ago
I don't think that having some proof is too much to ask. Press freedom is important because it can keep in check the other branches of power. But it shouldn't be so free as to be able to publish known lies.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Depends on if you think that freedom of speech should only be for multi-millionaires.
  - xdennis 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. Personally I believe that individuals should have more freedom of speech protections than corporations or media companies because of the power imbalance.
    - dghlsakjg 5y ago
      I think what they're getting at is that defending yourself in court is not easy or free even if you have the truth on your side. A determined litigant can bury you in paperwork, costs, and other hindrances to the point that your speech is essentially surpressed. The OP case is a good example. Showing up to contest the requested inunction likely cost a lot more than the story is worth. J+J knew they were going to lose this, but they wanted to remind the publisher that they need a lawyer on speed dial. As much as journalists and editors claim they aren't cowed by this kind of behavior, you can bet that they will tread carefully around j+j in the future

Dylan16807 5y ago

Even if we assume those are the best metrics, if something has to be shown to be in the public interest, rather than just not against the public interest, that's quite a high bar.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Publishing the contents of my diary is not against the public interest. I'd still be quite upset if you did that, especially if picked events to make me look bad. (Yet, you wouldn't need to be lying. I've done things I'm not proud of, that I try to hide.) If ever it becomes in the public interest to publish my secrets (e.g. if I'm claiming no affiliation with an organisation I used to work with, while awarding them grants) then go ahead. But until then, my private life is my private life.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Well that's why I said "if we assume those are the best metrics". Privacy would be an additional one. I wasn't trying to make a full and ideal rule set, just pointing out that the one you said is extremely narrow and even really bad free speech rules could pass it. Like one that prevents me from talking about someone in a park playing with a kite.

drzaiusapelord 5y ago

There really arent any. Hate speech isn't "true" regardless of your basement phrenologists Roganism's that this race or that ethnicity is "inferior" to a white person due to skull or brain size. Or doctored studies that purposely dont take poverty and other things into account. The other category is libel/slander which is properly protected in the UK where a real burden of proof is put on the person making the claim, meanwhile in the USA, "news" shows lie with impunity, and almost always for the benefit of the oligarchy. Its a better system than the USA's and by far. Right-wing types, who also dominate this forum, dislike it because it limits the lies and racism and islomaphobia they so deeply identify with, and is reinforced to them by the dishonest right-wing media they consume which has almost no limits on dishonest or hateful speech in the USA. So its an ugly cycle of extremists radicalizing new extremists for political gain (read: faithful GOP voters) by the billionaire owners of these media outlets who gain from these narratives both politically and economically.

legalcorrection 5y ago
In the UK the cops will knock on your door if you misgender someone on Twitter.

denton-scratch 5y ago

Ah, "in the public interest". There's no such provision in thew USA, and it's a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions (a member of the government) to determine what is in the public interest. It is absolutely forbidden to report on family court proceedings; there is no public interest defence.