4 ms·

> decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs Lawyers are expensive. Lawsuits are painful and time consuming. If you can tie your opponent up in cou

> decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs Lawyers are expensive. Lawsuits are painful and time consuming. If you can tie your opponent up in court - whether they win or lose becomes irrelevant - because you prevented them from spending time and money in the campaign. Further, if you have a friendly (or they have a hated) journalist, now you have coverage and headlines that are negative towards them.

cauch 2y ago
Sure, but you can already tie your opponent up in court by accusing them to be drug dealers or having embezzled party money. It does not happen, because there is a political cost of the public opinion of doing that. If indeed your opponent has done nothing wrong, it will be obvious to the public and clear that you are a piece of sh*t. If you have enough power that you don't care about that, then you already have plenty of other ways, way easier and efficient, to get rid of your political opponents.
- rayiner 2y ago
  It’s much harder to do that, because it requires evidence of physical conduct. It’s much easier to just label something that’s an opinion to be an assertion of truth that can be prosecuted.
  - cauch 2y ago
    Don't miss the forest for the tree. There are plenty of sentences said by politicians that are easily ground for attacking them for libel. So, if you find excuses to reject some of my example, you can just do a little bit of effort and you will find yourself other examples where politicians had opportunities to attack their opponent based on a superficial accusation. And also, this is not how it works: you cannot start a trial just by labeling an opinion to be an assertion of truth, the same way you cannot start a trial by just saying "I consider that grass blades are human, so my political opponent who has mown their lawn are murderers". You can bring the case to the authorities, but they will be the one deciding if it's an offense or not, and your political opponent will not be tied up in court until then.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      > You can bring the case to the authorities, but they will be the one deciding if it's an offense or not, and your political opponent will not be tied up in court until then. You forget that the "authorities" are appointed by politicians. If you're left-wing, would you be comfortable being tried by someone appointed by Trump? If you're right-wing, would you be comfortable being tried by someone appointed by Biden? (Please forgive the US references, I'm not familiar with Welsh politics and don't know the names of politicians who would cause similar fear in political opponents there.) ---- Edit: Rather than arguing about hypotheticals or foreign equivalents, let's consider a specific case cited in TFA: > During the debate, the Labour member Alun Davies accused the leader of the Tories in Wales, Andrew RT Davies, of tweeting a “direct lie” earlier on Tuesday that Labour want to pay illegal immigrants £1,600 a month. In fact, Labour did pay £1,600 a month to certain immigrants who were seeking, but had not yet been granted, asylum. The only "lie" in question is the use of the term "illegal immigrants". That's the kind of blurry political line that Labour wants to criminalize.[1] And it's a far, far more blurry line than murder. It's almost certain to be decided solely based on the political beliefs of the judge and jury. I'm not talking about corruption here. I'm talking about the kind of controversial questions where "truth" is really open to debate. 1: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/wales-is-not-giving-1600-month-illegal-migrants-2024-05-01/ https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/wales-is-not-giving-1600-... "VERDICT: False. The Welsh government ran a pilot project that included financial help for asylum-seeking children, not illegal migrants."
      - cauch 2y ago
        Again, if the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, then they could already today declare it's a murder when a politician says their opponent has cut a blade of grass and it is a murder. This is what I don't understand: if indeed the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, how this law change anything, they already have plenty of easier way to attack their opponents. In US, the mentality is very bad and people may have low morality and ethic. In Europe, being appointed by a politician does not mean you will be their lackey. But it is not even that: it's not like someone can just say "got you! now you will be trialed by my friend Ben". There are several layers before and after that mean that an accusation is only prosecuted when there is a large consensus that the prosecution is justified. I know that in US the lines are very blurred because each politician is saying "it's a political trial" even when there is credible ground to investigate, but that's more a question of people being uneducated than a real system. In the large majority of the cases (there is always one or two outliers that don't prove much), every big prosecutions on politicians in US are "normal" and would have happened even in a parallel universe where their political opponents were not touching any judicial string.

cauch 2y ago

Sure, but you can already tie your opponent up in court by accusing them to be drug dealers or having embezzled party money. It does not happen, because there is a political cost of the public opinion of doing that. If indeed your opponent has done nothing wrong, it will be obvious to the public and clear that you are a piece of sh*t. If you have enough power that you don't care about that, then you already have plenty of other ways, way easier and efficient, to get rid of your political opponents.

rayiner 2y ago
It’s much harder to do that, because it requires evidence of physical conduct. It’s much easier to just label something that’s an opinion to be an assertion of truth that can be prosecuted.
- cauch 2y ago
  Don't miss the forest for the tree. There are plenty of sentences said by politicians that are easily ground for attacking them for libel. So, if you find excuses to reject some of my example, you can just do a little bit of effort and you will find yourself other examples where politicians had opportunities to attack their opponent based on a superficial accusation. And also, this is not how it works: you cannot start a trial just by labeling an opinion to be an assertion of truth, the same way you cannot start a trial by just saying "I consider that grass blades are human, so my political opponent who has mown their lawn are murderers". You can bring the case to the authorities, but they will be the one deciding if it's an offense or not, and your political opponent will not be tied up in court until then.
  - leereeves 2y ago
    > You can bring the case to the authorities, but they will be the one deciding if it's an offense or not, and your political opponent will not be tied up in court until then. You forget that the "authorities" are appointed by politicians. If you're left-wing, would you be comfortable being tried by someone appointed by Trump? If you're right-wing, would you be comfortable being tried by someone appointed by Biden? (Please forgive the US references, I'm not familiar with Welsh politics and don't know the names of politicians who would cause similar fear in political opponents there.) ---- Edit: Rather than arguing about hypotheticals or foreign equivalents, let's consider a specific case cited in TFA: > During the debate, the Labour member Alun Davies accused the leader of the Tories in Wales, Andrew RT Davies, of tweeting a “direct lie” earlier on Tuesday that Labour want to pay illegal immigrants £1,600 a month. In fact, Labour did pay £1,600 a month to certain immigrants who were seeking, but had not yet been granted, asylum. The only "lie" in question is the use of the term "illegal immigrants". That's the kind of blurry political line that Labour wants to criminalize.[1] And it's a far, far more blurry line than murder. It's almost certain to be decided solely based on the political beliefs of the judge and jury. I'm not talking about corruption here. I'm talking about the kind of controversial questions where "truth" is really open to debate. 1: https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/wales-is-not-giving-1600-month-illegal-migrants-2024-05-01/ https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/wales-is-not-giving-1600-... "VERDICT: False. The Welsh government ran a pilot project that included financial help for asylum-seeking children, not illegal migrants."
    - cauch 2y ago
      Again, if the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, then they could already today declare it's a murder when a politician says their opponent has cut a blade of grass and it is a murder. This is what I don't understand: if indeed the authorities are in the pocket of the politicians, how this law change anything, they already have plenty of easier way to attack their opponents. In US, the mentality is very bad and people may have low morality and ethic. In Europe, being appointed by a politician does not mean you will be their lackey. But it is not even that: it's not like someone can just say "got you! now you will be trialed by my friend Ben". There are several layers before and after that mean that an accusation is only prosecuted when there is a large consensus that the prosecution is justified. I know that in US the lines are very blurred because each politician is saying "it's a political trial" even when there is credible ground to investigate, but that's more a question of people being uneducated than a real system. In the large majority of the cases (there is always one or two outliers that don't prove much), every big prosecutions on politicians in US are "normal" and would have happened even in a parallel universe where their political opponents were not touching any judicial string.