21–30 of 231 posts
He claims defamation requires a statement of fact rather than an opinion. This very much depends on the particular jurisdiction. Defamation does extend to opinions, especially unreasonable opinions, in many countries.
If something is not illegal but clearly bad, it's a lesson that we should change the law. It absolutely should not be legal to lob a completely baseless murder accusation at someone with no evidence.
The law deserves more nuance than that: it's clearly bad that someone can baselessly accuse someone else of murder, but it's not clear that a weaker defamation standard produces better social outcomes overall. In this particular case: the woman making the baseless claims is pretty clearly mentally ill. Is society best served by her being fined or serving jail time? It's not clear to me that it is.
He claims defamation requires a statement of fact rather than an opinion. This very much depends on the particular jurisdiction. Defamation does extend to opinions, especially unreasonable opinions, in many countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law deserves more nuance than that: it's clearly bad that someone can baselessly accuse someone else of murder, but it's not clear that a weaker defamation standard produces better social outcomes overall. In this particular case: the woman making the baseless claims is pretty clearly mentally ill. Is society best served by her being fined or serving jail time? It's not clear to me that it is.
It seems pretty fucked up that if I’m being defamed, I can’t do anything about it if the person defaming me is mentally ill. Do I just have to sit there and watch my reputation go down the shitter, with potential loss of jobs, income, etc.? That doesn’t seem like a workable system to me.
I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
I wish I could buy this, but you really don't want it to be illegal to say "politician X is a murderer", because they started a war or denied food to orphans or something. I don't know if there's a viable way to draw the line between that and the case in the article. (Note: safety from crazy people who believe the claim doesn't work, since people are definitely going to go after politician X.
I’m confused by the idea that “Professor Scofield plotted and ordered the murders” is a statement of opinion. It seems like a clear example of what I’d consider a factual claim; it’s objectively true or false based on what happened in the physical world. Why does the factualness of her reasons for speaking the claim affect whether the claim itself is defamatory?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The law deserves more nuance than that: it's clearly bad that someone can baselessly accuse someone else of murder, but it's not clear that a weaker defamation standard produces better social outcomes overall. In this particular case: the woman making the baseless claims is pretty clearly mentally ill. Is society best served by her being fined or serving jail time? It's not clear to me that it is.
It seems pretty fucked up that if I’m being defamed, I can’t do anything about it if the person defaming me is mentally ill. Do I just have to sit there and watch my reputation go down the shitter, with potential loss of jobs, income, etc.? That doesn’t seem like a workable system to me.
It's not clear what should happen differently. The court can't enforce the private mental states of random citizens; there could be millions of cranks right now who believe that you're a murderer and are talking about you behind your back. Unless their beliefs come from factual claims that they know are false, it's not clear what recourse the courts should offer you.