5 ms·

I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.

by shabda 17y ago

Confusion 17y ago
An unbalanced opinion, based on a soundbite that is repeated over and over again by people that should first think through what it would mean if put into practice. You would not defend my right to publically, repeatedly, defamate you or your products, would you? For that exact reason there are laws against that. If I repeated over and over again you were a pedophile and spread false evidence to that effect, don't you think I would be able to convince people? And don't I need to convince only a few 'right' people to make your life hell?
- okeumeni 17y ago
  Defamation is not free speech, defending the right to free speech should be anyone duty.
- philwelch 17y ago
  Disagreement about historical fact is not defamation. If I want to say Ataturk or Hitler or Andrew Jackson are variously guilty or innocent of genocide that is my right. In fact, I really don't see how it's defamation to claim that someone is innocent of genocide.
  - Confusion 17y ago
    It's defamation to call an Auschwitz survivor a liar. More general, it's defamatory to implicitly say that all those people that know the facts are liars.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      It's defamation if it's known to be false and spoken maliciously. Moreover, to be actionable, defamation has to actually cause damage. You're making assumptions here that won't survive your argument.
      - Confusion 17y ago
        The fact that you cannot get someone sentenced for defamation does not mean his words weren't defamatory. If a murder is committed in a crowd of fifty and they all deny knowing who the murderer is, making justice impossible, then one of them is still a murderer. Imagine a holocaust surviver with a business. Imagine a client that is convinced by a lying holocaust denier. Business owner loses client. In more general terms, lies cause damage in indirect ways. That you cannot prove such a thing in an individual case does not mean no damage is done. The aggregated effect of holocaust deniers convincing a few more people that the Jews are a lying bunch necessarily causes damage.
        tptacek 17y ago
        "Imagine a client that is convinced by a lying holocaust denier". Can I imagine him with antennae, too? You haven't addressed my point, and you're repeating points you've made elsewhere in this thread. You're making the same assumptions (that deniers are malicious "liars", and not simply morons), and informing us only that you're afraid of certain kinds of speech.
        Confusion 17y ago
        Antennae would be very fashionable in Milan this time of the year :). Was your point that 'defamation' has a strict meaning in law and that I was wrong in suggesting that these deniers are guilty of defamation in that strict sense? In that case, that is probably true, I'll trust you on that. My previous comment was intended to explain that I did not mean it in such a strict sense. My argument was not that it is wrong because it is that exact offense that is punishable by law. The fact that we have laws covering parts of that behaviour merely illustrates that we consider it wrong. But that only parts of the behaviour are covered does not mean that the other parts are not considered wrong. Some behaviour is not outlawed because it is not feasible to formulate proper laws to cover the behaviour: even in countries where holocaust denial is forbidden, most cases of holocaust denial cannot possibly be prosecuted. As an aside, in my book, a 'liar' does not necessarily have malicious intent. He may just be ignorant: morons and liars are not mutually exclusive. Finally, seeing what demagogues have been capable of: yes, the power of words is scary. Fear is a bad counsellor, but still a warning to be heeded after the fear has passed over you and through you.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      Not by the law. Or are you using "defamatory" as a label to dismiss ideas without having to actually prove them false? (Fact: Proving that the Holocaust actually happened is easier, and works better, than trying to change people's opinions through sheer outrage.) http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
swombat 17y ago
What if what I want to say is: "Guards, shoot him now." ? This is a contrived example, of course, but it demonstrates a simple idea: (some) words kill. Facebook is a private company. They have no duty to uphold free speech. However, they do have a duty to do what's in their own self-interest. Being seen as a haven for hate speech is probably not it.

I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.

by shabda 17y ago

I disagree with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say it.

An unbalanced opinion, based on a soundbite that is repeated over and over again by people that should first think through what it would mean if put into practice. You would not defend my right to publically, repeatedly, defamate you or your products, would you? For that exact reason there are laws against that. If I repeated over and over again you were a pedophile and spread false evidence to that effect, don't you think I would be able to convince people? And don't I need to convince only a few 'right' people to make your life hell?

okeumeni 17y ago
Defamation is not free speech, defending the right to free speech should be anyone duty.
philwelch 17y ago
Disagreement about historical fact is not defamation. If I want to say Ataturk or Hitler or Andrew Jackson are variously guilty or innocent of genocide that is my right. In fact, I really don't see how it's defamation to claim that someone is innocent of genocide.
- Confusion 17y ago
  It's defamation to call an Auschwitz survivor a liar. More general, it's defamatory to implicitly say that all those people that know the facts are liars.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    It's defamation if it's known to be false and spoken maliciously. Moreover, to be actionable, defamation has to actually cause damage. You're making assumptions here that won't survive your argument.
    - Confusion 17y ago
      The fact that you cannot get someone sentenced for defamation does not mean his words weren't defamatory. If a murder is committed in a crowd of fifty and they all deny knowing who the murderer is, making justice impossible, then one of them is still a murderer. Imagine a holocaust surviver with a business. Imagine a client that is convinced by a lying holocaust denier. Business owner loses client. In more general terms, lies cause damage in indirect ways. That you cannot prove such a thing in an individual case does not mean no damage is done. The aggregated effect of holocaust deniers convincing a few more people that the Jews are a lying bunch necessarily causes damage.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        "Imagine a client that is convinced by a lying holocaust denier". Can I imagine him with antennae, too? You haven't addressed my point, and you're repeating points you've made elsewhere in this thread. You're making the same assumptions (that deniers are malicious "liars", and not simply morons), and informing us only that you're afraid of certain kinds of speech.
        Confusion 17y ago
        Antennae would be very fashionable in Milan this time of the year :). Was your point that 'defamation' has a strict meaning in law and that I was wrong in suggesting that these deniers are guilty of defamation in that strict sense? In that case, that is probably true, I'll trust you on that. My previous comment was intended to explain that I did not mean it in such a strict sense. My argument was not that it is wrong because it is that exact offense that is punishable by law. The fact that we have laws covering parts of that behaviour merely illustrates that we consider it wrong. But that only parts of the behaviour are covered does not mean that the other parts are not considered wrong. Some behaviour is not outlawed because it is not feasible to formulate proper laws to cover the behaviour: even in countries where holocaust denial is forbidden, most cases of holocaust denial cannot possibly be prosecuted. As an aside, in my book, a 'liar' does not necessarily have malicious intent. He may just be ignorant: morons and liars are not mutually exclusive. Finally, seeing what demagogues have been capable of: yes, the power of words is scary. Fear is a bad counsellor, but still a warning to be heeded after the fear has passed over you and through you.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    Not by the law. Or are you using "defamatory" as a label to dismiss ideas without having to actually prove them false? (Fact: Proving that the Holocaust actually happened is easier, and works better, than trying to change people's opinions through sheer outrage.) http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

swombat 17y ago

What if what I want to say is: "Guards, shoot him now." ? This is a contrived example, of course, but it demonstrates a simple idea: (some) words kill. Facebook is a private company. They have no duty to uphold free speech. However, they do have a duty to do what's in their own self-interest. Being seen as a haven for hate speech is probably not it.