4 ms·
I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall
by suddenclarity 3y ago
I find the argument quite ridiculous, but worse, the premise seems flawed. Contrary to the authors claim, publishing humiliating information would probably fall under defamation, which is illegal. At least in my country.
- OscarCunningham 3y agoDefamation requires making false statements about someone. It's not defamation to reveal true embarrassing information.
- akerl_ 3y agoIn the US, publishing true information generally cannot be defamation.
- brabel 3y agoI think that you may even be legally bound to reveal certain true information that you've come across, regardless of whether that would be humiliating for someone (say, information about a corrupt politician taking bribes).
- akerl_ 3y agoI don't think that's the case, outside of some very specific crimes and roles (for instance, mandatory reporters of indicators of child abuse). If you're a politician and I find out you're taking bribes, I don't have a legal obligation to tell anybody. I just can't blackmail you about it.
- MereInterest 3y agoThough not stated in the abstract, I assume that the information to be published is true. In the US, truth of a statement is an absolute defense against defamation. That is, regardless of how humiliating the information is, no matter the personal embarrassment from its release, no matter my intentions in releasing it, it cannot be defamation if the information is true.
- suddenclarity 3y agoInteresting. In Sweden it's illegal even if it's true unless you can argue that it was "justifiable".