4 ms·
As an American, we hold free speech to be much more important. We don't put arrest people for making racists Tweets. We don't put people in jail for denying the
by danielweber 14y ago
As an American, we hold free speech to be much more important. We don't put arrest people for making racists Tweets. We don't put people in jail for denying the Holocaust. We don't have censors for people who dare to say that homeopathy doesn't work. (Or, for that matter, who say that it does, unless they are trying to defraud customers.)
To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true.
Free speech is damn messy.
- chmike 14y agoIn France, it would be Tara's responsibility to prove her claims. It makes more sense than the opposite. One of the rationale of this principle is that setting up a trial to contest defamatory claims is reproducing the defamatory action. Beside, if someone claims you are a pedophile, a human body eater or like to kill for instance, how could you objectively prove you're not ? Those who claim things should logically have the burden of proof, especially if it is defamatory. This is surprising because it seem to me like a common sense limit to free speech. It is also why I feel much safer in France.
- danielweber 14y ago"Common sense limit to free speech" is why you are French, not American. There's no freedom to not be offended. There's a reason the Church of Scientology loves suing people in England.