4 ms·

It is best to look at this from a procedural standpoint. If you make a specific claim against an individual, that individual has the ability to prove that they

It is best to look at this from a procedural standpoint. If you make a specific claim against an individual, that individual has the ability to prove that they are harmed/affected by what you have done. Which means they have standing and the case is much less likely to be immediately dismissed. Additionally, that individual is able to defend themselves against the claims that you have made and would actually be able to present evidence in any proceedings. Whereas accusing a group means no individual has a clear case that they have been harmed. And, there is generally no individual or organization from said group that is able to speak for it. Although there are indeed some organizations that exist for this purpose, like the ADL. It is not so much that being non-specific makes defamation acceptable, but rather, being non specific makes it so much more difficult to go after the person.

slg 4y ago
What if there is a clear case of being harmed? For example, what if a mass shooter cites someone who spouts hate speech as a motivation for their actions?
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  How is that different from Charles Manson claiming that The Beatles were sending him coded messages telling him to start a race war, or David Berkowitz claiming that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people? Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?
  - slg 4y ago
    It is ironic that you use Manson as an example. He was convicted of murder despite not directly committing the murders or ordering the murders to be done. He is in jail for the how his speech inspired others to act. These are trials we are talking about. We don’t have to believe everything that is said. We can let a jury look at the situation and make a decision. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider any Beatles lyrics to be instructions to murder. A reasonable person could interpret some hate speech as instructions for murder.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      Manson was convicted for explicitly ordering people to carry out specific crimes, not for some vaguely-defined "hate speech".
      - slg 4y ago
        Here is the first paragraph of Manson's Wikipedia page: >Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and musician who led the Manson Family, a cult based in California, in the late 1960s. Some of the members committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        The jury apparently believed otherwise. Besides, the history of the legal system is rife with instances of juries going along with prosecutorial bullshit.
        slg 4y ago
        >The jury apparently believed otherwise. That isn't how that works. The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        > The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued. No, but they can find someone guilty without reference to what the prosecution says. Neither the jury, nor the prosecution, nor me, nor even (likely) you believes that Manson was convicted solely on the basis of hypothetical speech. Tex Watson testified that Manson explicitly ordered the Tate killings. Manson was physically present at the scene of the LaBianca killings, and actually entered the house (again, according to Watson).

slg 4y ago

What if there is a clear case of being harmed? For example, what if a mass shooter cites someone who spouts hate speech as a motivation for their actions?

Turing_Machine 4y ago
How is that different from Charles Manson claiming that The Beatles were sending him coded messages telling him to start a race war, or David Berkowitz claiming that his neighbor's dog was telling him to kill people? Do we get to blame Karl Marx for the tens of millions who have been murdered by his followers?
- slg 4y ago
  It is ironic that you use Manson as an example. He was convicted of murder despite not directly committing the murders or ordering the murders to be done. He is in jail for the how his speech inspired others to act. These are trials we are talking about. We don’t have to believe everything that is said. We can let a jury look at the situation and make a decision. A reasonable person wouldn’t consider any Beatles lyrics to be instructions to murder. A reasonable person could interpret some hate speech as instructions for murder.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    Manson was convicted for explicitly ordering people to carry out specific crimes, not for some vaguely-defined "hate speech".
    - slg 4y ago
      Here is the first paragraph of Manson's Wikipedia page: >Charles Milles Manson (né Maddox; November 12, 1934 – November 19, 2017) was an American criminal and musician who led the Manson Family, a cult based in California, in the late 1960s. Some of the members committed a series of nine murders at four locations in July and August 1969. In 1971, Manson was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder for the deaths of seven people, including the film actress Sharon Tate. The prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson
      - Turing_Machine 4y ago
        The jury apparently believed otherwise. Besides, the history of the legal system is rife with instances of juries going along with prosecutorial bullshit.
        slg 4y ago
        >The jury apparently believed otherwise. That isn't how that works. The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued.
        Turing_Machine 4y ago
        > The jury can't charge someone with a crime beyond what the prosecution argued. No, but they can find someone guilty without reference to what the prosecution says. Neither the jury, nor the prosecution, nor me, nor even (likely) you believes that Manson was convicted solely on the basis of hypothetical speech. Tex Watson testified that Manson explicitly ordered the Tate killings. Manson was physically present at the scene of the LaBianca killings, and actually entered the house (again, according to Watson).