4 ms·

I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher moral culpability in my reading, but I'm not a lawyer. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displa

I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher moral culpability in my reading, but I'm not a lawyer. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=46.&lawCode=CIV https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil matter, why should we desire mens rea? Why ought the search for relief hinge on whether someone was noble as opposed to whether they spoke falsely and harmfully? Every other person in society feels they are righteous in their mind.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher moral culpability in my reading, You may not find it in the state statute, because it is a federal Constitutional limitation grounded in the First Amendment. See, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974). > As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil matter, why should we desire mens rea? Because Constitutional limits on government power (except those specifically by their own terms tied to criminal law) affect all uses of government power, including providing civil remedies through the judiciary. People freely expressing honest views without failing some legal duty of care cannot be punished in a society where from of expression is viewed as a fundamental right.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  > (c) So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood which injures a private individual and whose substance makes substantial danger to reputation apparent. Pp. 418 U. S. 347-348. > 2. The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and the private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than the New York Times test may recover compensation only for actual injury. Pp. 418 U. S. 348-350. What I see is that states may not permit recovery for punitive damages, but it's fine for states to have laws which permit recovery for harm alone without finding of any fault. I don't really have an opinion on extra punitive damages, just really focusing on whether parties ought be able to seek relief for demonstrated harms despite any noble intentions.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > What I see is that states may not permit recovery for punitive damages, but it's fine for states to have laws which permit recovery for harm alone without finding of any fault. No, what it says is: States can set their own rules as long as (1) they do not assign any defamatiom liability without fault [negligence being the minimal standard of fault, “So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability”; emphasis added] and (2) they allow only actual damages for defamation unless the standard is at least the much higher actual malice standard set forth for any defamation about public figures in New York Times v Sullivan [“The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth”].

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I don't see a requirement for negligence or higher moral culpability in my reading, You may not find it in the state statute, because it is a federal Constitutional limitation grounded in the First Amendment. See, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323 (1974). > As harmful speech to businesses is generally a civil matter, why should we desire mens rea? Because Constitutional limits on government power (except those specifically by their own terms tied to criminal law) affect all uses of government power, including providing civil remedies through the judiciary. People freely expressing honest views without failing some legal duty of care cannot be punished in a society where from of expression is viewed as a fundamental right.

threatofrain 4y ago
> (c) So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood which injures a private individual and whose substance makes substantial danger to reputation apparent. Pp. 418 U. S. 347-348. > 2. The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and the private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than the New York Times test may recover compensation only for actual injury. Pp. 418 U. S. 348-350. What I see is that states may not permit recovery for punitive damages, but it's fine for states to have laws which permit recovery for harm alone without finding of any fault. I don't really have an opinion on extra punitive damages, just really focusing on whether parties ought be able to seek relief for demonstrated harms despite any noble intentions.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > What I see is that states may not permit recovery for punitive damages, but it's fine for states to have laws which permit recovery for harm alone without finding of any fault. No, what it says is: States can set their own rules as long as (1) they do not assign any defamatiom liability without fault [negligence being the minimal standard of fault, “So long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability”; emphasis added] and (2) they allow only actual damages for defamation unless the standard is at least the much higher actual malice standard set forth for any defamation about public figures in New York Times v Sullivan [“The States, however, may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages when liability is not based on knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth”].