3 ms·

- "This is just libel." It's not libel; it's just an opinionated argument that you dislike, so much so that you want to stop the other person from speaking.

CuriouslyC 2y ago
I don't know. If you were to say the man is a drug dealer, criminal and untrustworthy based on something >20 years in the past, unless your language clearly indicates that stuff was LONG in the past it seems intent on causing material harm to the person by misleading readers which is literally libel.
- perihelions 2y ago
  - "it seems intent on causing material harm" It's intent on changing public policy by persuading voters with argumentation. This is the most protected class of speech. That it publishes ugly true facts about individuals (which is also protected!) is an incidental step towards the author trying to paint a persuasive political narrative. (I can't help but want to break this down. You say it's misleading, but the case docket is hyperlinked inline with the text you say is misleading—that's far more than adequate in US jurisprudence. No "reasonable person" (a technical standard) is misled on a fact that's plainly disclosed, just one click away. You say the criminality is in the "distant past"—but the person's felon status is current, ongoing, and in fact relevant to the author's line of arguing, which is that these nonprofits are a form of "laundering" federal government grants to people the federal government otherwise disqualifies. You think (and I'm sympathetic to this) that crimes committed 20+ years ago are not strongly reflective of the current human. But, this is a subjective interpretation—not an objective truth beyond reasonable debate; and the fact that the US government itself disagrees, by permanently disqualifying felons shows how ludicrous it'd be to argue, in a US court, that "he's a convicted felon" is speech without social value).
  - sotix 2y ago
    > You now know why libel and slander laws in the UK don't allow the factual truth to be an absolute defense. Let’s revisit the original comment.
    - perihelions 2y ago
      Let's revisit the original post, which wrote something critical of a $3 million government contract. Should that be legally perilous? Should be people be scared to express opinions online about how their governments award 7-figure contracts, out of fear of the contract recipients hiring law firms and suing them?
      - sotix 2y ago
        I was only trying to help you because it appeared that you misread the comment and began ranting about an unrelated matter from that misunderstanding. Not interested in this conversation, sorry.
paulmd 2y ago
Welll yes, and libel law incorporates precisely these sorts of protections! People would in fact get in field and kill each other precisely because “they disliked it so much they wanted to stop the other person from speaking”. Dead people don’t do much speaking, and libel/slander are a social response to the dead people. > 370 Falsely and maliciously accusing another. Sec. 370. Falsely and maliciously accusing another of crime, etc.—Any person who shall falsely and maliciously, by word, writing, sign, or otherwise accuse, attribute, or impute to another the commission of any crime, felony or misdemeanor, or any infamous or degrading act, or impute or attribute to any female a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Literally only have to imply the commission of a false or degrading act, or imply a woman is a slut. Why do you think that would be historically if not to keep people from killing each other over saying things they didn’t like.

CuriouslyC 2y ago

I don't know. If you were to say the man is a drug dealer, criminal and untrustworthy based on something >20 years in the past, unless your language clearly indicates that stuff was LONG in the past it seems intent on causing material harm to the person by misleading readers which is literally libel.

perihelions 2y ago
- "it seems intent on causing material harm" It's intent on changing public policy by persuading voters with argumentation. This is the most protected class of speech. That it publishes ugly true facts about individuals (which is also protected!) is an incidental step towards the author trying to paint a persuasive political narrative. (I can't help but want to break this down. You say it's misleading, but the case docket is hyperlinked inline with the text you say is misleading—that's far more than adequate in US jurisprudence. No "reasonable person" (a technical standard) is misled on a fact that's plainly disclosed, just one click away. You say the criminality is in the "distant past"—but the person's felon status is current, ongoing, and in fact relevant to the author's line of arguing, which is that these nonprofits are a form of "laundering" federal government grants to people the federal government otherwise disqualifies. You think (and I'm sympathetic to this) that crimes committed 20+ years ago are not strongly reflective of the current human. But, this is a subjective interpretation—not an objective truth beyond reasonable debate; and the fact that the US government itself disagrees, by permanently disqualifying felons shows how ludicrous it'd be to argue, in a US court, that "he's a convicted felon" is speech without social value).
- sotix 2y ago
  > You now know why libel and slander laws in the UK don't allow the factual truth to be an absolute defense. Let’s revisit the original comment.
  - perihelions 2y ago
    Let's revisit the original post, which wrote something critical of a $3 million government contract. Should that be legally perilous? Should be people be scared to express opinions online about how their governments award 7-figure contracts, out of fear of the contract recipients hiring law firms and suing them?
    - sotix 2y ago
      I was only trying to help you because it appeared that you misread the comment and began ranting about an unrelated matter from that misunderstanding. Not interested in this conversation, sorry.

paulmd 2y ago

Welll yes, and libel law incorporates precisely these sorts of protections! People would in fact get in field and kill each other precisely because “they disliked it so much they wanted to stop the other person from speaking”. Dead people don’t do much speaking, and libel/slander are a social response to the dead people. > 370 Falsely and maliciously accusing another. Sec. 370. Falsely and maliciously accusing another of crime, etc.—Any person who shall falsely and maliciously, by word, writing, sign, or otherwise accuse, attribute, or impute to another the commission of any crime, felony or misdemeanor, or any infamous or degrading act, or impute or attribute to any female a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Literally only have to imply the commission of a false or degrading act, or imply a woman is a slut. Why do you think that would be historically if not to keep people from killing each other over saying things they didn’t like.