7 ms·

I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension account

by vacri 12y ago

I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little. It's actually pretty hard for someone with little or no resources to fight defamation as it is. Take away their recourse in an 'all or nothing free speech!' drive, and it's game over. It's also hardly 'a small price', if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up. And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void. Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry. The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that.

JupiterMoon 12y ago
So basically people shouldn't lie about things that harm other people? Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about. I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.
- vacri 12y ago
  I wasn't talking in context of the UK. I was talking in context of the GP's all-or-nothing-free-speech position. In an all or nothing system, there's no such thing as taking someone to court over defamation, because any restriction on speech is verboten.
  - JupiterMoon 12y ago
    Sure OK let's take the UK out of it. However, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that civil dispute resolution mechanisms for defamation have to constitute a restriction on speech. People can still say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. They can merely be called out if they are lying.
    - vacri 12y ago
      Without a government to enforce that you stop lying, through fines or even prison time, how do you stop someone more socially powerful than you? You can call someone out and be right, but if they're more charismatic, more popular, or better at marketing their point than you, you still suffer.
      - JupiterMoon 12y ago
        > Without a government to enforce that you stop lying, through fines or even prison time Is libel not a civil offence? I.e. the court case is person vs person not state vs person. You confront the person lying in court and if on the balance of probabilities they can't demonstrate what they said to be true then they pay you compensation (plus costs). No one goes to jail, no fines are levied. The government's role is to provide a judge (and potential jury) and court room.
        vacri 12y ago
        And if they don't pay up?
fweespeech 12y ago
> The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that. See, you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability (defamation). Defamation, libel, etc. laws are necessary to prevent abuse of speech to the point it causes financial damage via falsehoods. However, it does not require government censorship and prior restraint which is what the UK Government is advocating. ---- EDIT (to get around post timer, this is the last time I'm responding to you because your argument is just disingenuous at best): ...that is such a disingenuous argument that I'm assuming you are just are oblivious. > So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. No one is suggesting people are suddenly immune to contract law or NDAs, which solve this problem. You simply sue such people for breech of contract until its not financially profitable to sell such information. > And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship. ...no? NDAs also solve this problem and/or a requirement for NDAs. The problem with free speech restriction is not that you can't ask people to sign NDAs in return for a job. The problem with free speech restrictions is when it restraints everyone. I really don't think you are getting the concept that: A) Everyone has a right to exercise their freedom of speech without restriction. B) If they lie, break a contractual obligation, or otherwise cause destruction...they can still be forced to suffer civil financial penalties via the Courts to deter such activities without massive justification. None of this requires Government censorship beyond "NHS employees must sign NDAs" [e.g. Snowden would have stayed in the US if he would have been bankrupted rather than thrown in prison for decades, I bet]
- vacri 12y ago
  you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability It seems that you are casually ignoring the points I made in my third and fourth paragraphs. Anyway, you can argue against the UK's new laws without requiring complete purism in freedom of speech. But my point was that an absolutist stance is simplistic. So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. They can't lose their jobs - or even suffer reduced chance of advancement - because that would be seen as a punishment, a restriction of speech. iscrimination point I raised. And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship. There's all sorts of sticky areas where extreme purist views get sullied from contact with the real world.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
>I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little. All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. >if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up. They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers that allow them to get up next to the line without crossing it. >And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void. Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. >Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry. Freedom of speech still means you are held to that speech when you sign it as a contract. Trying to stretch contract laws as being related to freedom of speech is showing an extreme attempt to stretch. >a simplistic It has far more thought to it than the notion that free speech means contract law is void or that discrimination is legalized. >extremist Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. >that doesn't survive contact with the real world Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle, no right you have will protect you from someone or something that wants your resources. >You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech Yes, for the issues that those in power don't reall care about. Those are the bread and circus; hope we enjoy it. >pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that. Appeal to popularity? All goverments also engage in rights violations that we would not stand to defend.
- vacri 12y ago
  >All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say. >if socially powerful people => They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside. > Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. True, but without restrictions on speech, you don't get defamation suits, and discrimination suits become much harder. Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it. > Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. Nonsense. Since when does being a core right mean any position is extremist? We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured, yet people taking the position that we should not be murdered or tortured are hardly extremist. It's boringly, yawningly mainstream. > Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle Reductio ad absurdum. We don't live in the jungle, in the real world. > Appeal to popularity? No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. You're painting imaginary pictures in an idealised black-and-white world. Yet people are demonstrably able to talk, criticise, and be democratic in western democracies. They yap on in bars, on facebook, on twitter, in knitting circles, at football games. Opposing political teams yell shrilly at each other. Folks can go and vote when elections come up. You're saying that because there are currently some restrictions on free speech, that those things don't exist - and they demonstrably do exist. It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.
cookiecaper 12y ago
>And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". You can already say this and not get in trouble, though it definitely wouldn't help your case in the event that a rejected black applicant chose to sue you for discrimination. The plaintiff would need to show a preponderance of evidence that they were passed over specifically because of their race and they would've surely been hired otherwise. A general statement showing a dislike for black people isn't sufficient. Discrimination is a civil, not a criminal, offense. IANAL, this is to the best of my knowledge.

by vacri 12y ago

JupiterMoon 12y ago

So basically people shouldn't lie about things that harm other people? Having the potential for civil action over defamation does not exclude people's right to say what they want. They are merely restricted to saying accurate things or else having to pay some money to the person they've lied about. I do find it slightly surreal that defamation is being discussed in the context of the UK - a country with (even following the excellent reforms of 2013) the most ridiculous libel laws around.

vacri 12y ago
I wasn't talking in context of the UK. I was talking in context of the GP's all-or-nothing-free-speech position. In an all or nothing system, there's no such thing as taking someone to court over defamation, because any restriction on speech is verboten.
- JupiterMoon 12y ago
  Sure OK let's take the UK out of it. However, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that civil dispute resolution mechanisms for defamation have to constitute a restriction on speech. People can still say whatever they want, whenever they want, to whoever they want. They can merely be called out if they are lying.
  - vacri 12y ago
    Without a government to enforce that you stop lying, through fines or even prison time, how do you stop someone more socially powerful than you? You can call someone out and be right, but if they're more charismatic, more popular, or better at marketing their point than you, you still suffer.
    - JupiterMoon 12y ago
      > Without a government to enforce that you stop lying, through fines or even prison time Is libel not a civil offence? I.e. the court case is person vs person not state vs person. You confront the person lying in court and if on the balance of probabilities they can't demonstrate what they said to be true then they pay you compensation (plus costs). No one goes to jail, no fines are levied. The government's role is to provide a judge (and potential jury) and court room.
      - vacri 12y ago
        And if they don't pay up?

fweespeech 12y ago

> The idea that freedom of speech is an all-or-nothing event is a simplistic, extremist position, that doesn't survive contact with the real world. You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech - pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that. See, you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability (defamation). Defamation, libel, etc. laws are necessary to prevent abuse of speech to the point it causes financial damage via falsehoods. However, it does not require government censorship and prior restraint which is what the UK Government is advocating. ---- EDIT (to get around post timer, this is the last time I'm responding to you because your argument is just disingenuous at best): ...that is such a disingenuous argument that I'm assuming you are just are oblivious. > So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. No one is suggesting people are suddenly immune to contract law or NDAs, which solve this problem. You simply sue such people for breech of contract until its not financially profitable to sell such information. > And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship. ...no? NDAs also solve this problem and/or a requirement for NDAs. The problem with free speech restriction is not that you can't ask people to sign NDAs in return for a job. The problem with free speech restrictions is when it restraints everyone. I really don't think you are getting the concept that: A) Everyone has a right to exercise their freedom of speech without restriction. B) If they lie, break a contractual obligation, or otherwise cause destruction...they can still be forced to suffer civil financial penalties via the Courts to deter such activities without massive justification. None of this requires Government censorship beyond "NHS employees must sign NDAs" [e.g. Snowden would have stayed in the US if he would have been bankrupted rather than thrown in prison for decades, I bet]

vacri 12y ago
you are casually ignoring he is talking about top-down Government censorship rather than the kind of speech that opens you up to civil liability It seems that you are casually ignoring the points I made in my third and fourth paragraphs. Anyway, you can argue against the UK's new laws without requiring complete purism in freedom of speech. But my point was that an absolutist stance is simplistic. So let's change it to government censorship: an absolute stance with no restrictions on freedom of speech now means that there is now no longer any confidential or secret information. No need for spies - senior government employees can just sell national secrets to the highest bidder, and if they're found out, hey, speech is not restricted. They can't lose their jobs - or even suffer reduced chance of advancement - because that would be seen as a punishment, a restriction of speech. iscrimination point I raised. And privacy laws go out the window. It's not defamation if it's accurate, right? So now people in the NHS can quite happily spread around gossip of your private medical history. Privacy laws are specifically, at their core, top-down government censorship. There's all sorts of sticky areas where extreme purist views get sullied from contact with the real world.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

>I have it on clear authority that Lawtonfogle is a thief; a liar; an adulterer; responsible for a toxic spill that poisoned kids; stole from the pension accounts; rigged elections; and whatever political affiliation the reader might have, Lawtonfogle is the extreme opposite... and thinks your fashion sense sucks. Ultimately, Lawtonfogle can't act, can't sing, and can only dance a little. All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. >if socially powerful people can just outright lie about a person and never be compelled to back it up. They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers that allow them to get up next to the line without crossing it. >And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". My hypothetical staff then take me at my word and don't hire them. There's no formal policy, it's just something I said. But I point at "no limitation on freedom of speech" and then any laws on discrimination are basically null and void. Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. >Insurance companies in the US already have departments dedicated to getting them out of their contracts. Imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could just flat-out lie, with no legal repurcussions? People can jaw all they want about 'the market would correct itself', but if you've already captured the market, fighting dirty keeps you strong - especially with a product with a very high barrier to entry. Freedom of speech still means you are held to that speech when you sign it as a contract. Trying to stretch contract laws as being related to freedom of speech is showing an extreme attempt to stretch. >a simplistic It has far more thought to it than the notion that free speech means contract law is void or that discrimination is legalized. >extremist Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. >that doesn't survive contact with the real world Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle, no right you have will protect you from someone or something that wants your resources. >You can still criticise, discuss, and be democratic with some restrictions on freedom of speech Yes, for the issues that those in power don't reall care about. Those are the bread and circus; hope we enjoy it. >pretty much all the nations we call 'western democracies' do exactly that. Appeal to popularity? All goverments also engage in rights violations that we would not stand to defend.

vacri 12y ago
>All that put together isn't even half as bad as some of the things others have called me. I wasn't even vaguely calling you that directly. I've never noted your handle before now. I was just giving examples of things that people could say. >if socially powerful people => They already can. Those with enough resources can get lawyers I'm talking about a much lower bar for 'socially powerful' than you are. I'm not talking about the Murdochs of the world, but the socially powerful people that everyday folks run into personally. Someone in your apartment block starts lying about you to the tenants committee, for example. Perhaps they are more charismatic and better at getting people onside. > Official policy has never been a requirement for discrimination lawsuits. True, but without restrictions on speech, you don't get defamation suits, and discrimination suits become much harder. Penalising someone in a discrimination suit for being recorded saying "I hate black people" means you are restricting their speech by punishing it. > Being such a core right, any position is that of an extremist. Nonsense. Since when does being a core right mean any position is extremist? We have core rights not to be murdered or tortured, yet people taking the position that we should not be murdered or tortured are hardly extremist. It's boringly, yawningly mainstream. > Neither does the very concept of rights. Out in a jungle Reductio ad absurdum. We don't live in the jungle, in the real world. > Appeal to popularity? No, pointing out that people still criticise, discuss, and be democratic - and demonstrably so. You're painting imaginary pictures in an idealised black-and-white world. Yet people are demonstrably able to talk, criticise, and be democratic in western democracies. They yap on in bars, on facebook, on twitter, in knitting circles, at football games. Opposing political teams yell shrilly at each other. Folks can go and vote when elections come up. You're saying that because there are currently some restrictions on free speech, that those things don't exist - and they demonstrably do exist. It does not follow that having some restrictions makes political discussion disappear.

cookiecaper 12y ago

>And hey, fuck it - as a boss, I could say "Black people are inherently stupid, don't hire them". You can already say this and not get in trouble, though it definitely wouldn't help your case in the event that a rejected black applicant chose to sue you for discrimination. The plaintiff would need to show a preponderance of evidence that they were passed over specifically because of their race and they would've surely been hired otherwise. A general statement showing a dislike for black people isn't sufficient. Discrimination is a civil, not a criminal, offense. IANAL, this is to the best of my knowledge.